INTERMARRIAGE IN
NEW YORK CITY
A Statistical Study
OF THE
Amalgamation of European Peoples
SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT
OF THE
REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE
OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
IN THE
FACULTY OF POLITICAL SCIENCE
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY
JULIUS DRACHSLER, M. A.
Assistant Professor of Economics
AND Sociology
in
Smith College
New York
1921
Copyright, 1921
By
JULIUS DRACHSLER
PREFACE
This monograph is a first attempt in a field of sociological
research that has thus far been cultivated only to a very lim-
ited degree, and in which careful and exhaustive work would,
without doubt, bring substantial results.
The problem of the amalgamation of ethnic groups in the
United States is of deep interest not only to the student of
group life and group interaction, but also to the practical
worker in the field of Americanization. Because of the in-
tensely controversial nature of the whole question, it has
seemed to me that nothing is more important for a scientific
apprehension of the problem than the effort to secure basic
facts first, and then proceed cautiously with the elaboration of
theories of assimilation and amalgamation.
In this monograph some of these basic facts are presented,
and their wider bearings upon public policies of assimilation
indicated. In a companion volume entitled Democracy and
Assimilation : The Blending of Immigrant Heritages in Amer-
ica, published by The Macmillan Company, 1920, I have ven-
tured a more popular discussion and interpretation of the
data in this study. The two publications are distinct not
only in purpose, but to a large extent also in form and in
content. The emphasis in this monograph is upon the facts
and their scientific explanation. Evaluations of the results
are carefully avoided. In the more popular treatise stress is
placed upon the meaning of the facts from the point of view
of the practical worker who wishes to aid in framing a reason-
able and effective public policy for the incorporation into
American life of the numerous immigrant groups and of their
immediate descendants. Of the ten chapters in the Mac-
hiillan publication, three are substantially the same in con-
tent as Chapters II., III. and IV. of this monograph. Chap-
ter v.. Statistical Appendix, however, is almost wholly omit-
ted. This part contains all the source material and important
derived tables that make the monograph of value to students
who may desire to follow out some of the lines of investiga-
tion indicated.
I am deeply indebted to Professors A. A. Tenney and R. E.
Chaddock for their invaluable aid while the manuscript was
in preparation.
The printing of the study would have been impossible, had
it not been for the generous aid of Professor Edwin R. A.
Seligman in securing the major portion of the publication fund
through contributions from Mrs. Sidney C. Borg, Messrs. D.
M. Hey man, Fred M. Stein, Cyrus L. Sulzberger and
Justice Irving Lehman. To these I wish to express my
great and lasting obligation.
A final word of thanks is due to Professor F. H. Gid-
dings ; also to Professor Henry R. Seager for his kindness
and courtesy in editing for the Studies a statistical mono-
graph which presented peculiarly difficult problems of
printing and publication.
JULIUS DRACHSLER.
New York City,
January 1st, 1921.
CONTENTS
PAGB
PREFACE 3
CHAPTER I. Introduction : The Problem 7
I. Lack of Scientific Data. 11. Character of the New Im-
migration. III. The Movement for Americanization. IV.
Need for a New Approach. V. Aim of this Study.
CHAPTER 11. Method and Scope 14
I. Earlier Methods of Studying Problem of Amalgamation.
II. General Method and Limitations of this Study. III. In-
termarriage Ratio as Index of Assimilation. IV. Selection
of an American Community for Study. V. Source of Data.
VI. Nimiber of Records Analyzed. VII. Method of Selec-
tion. VIII. Kinds of Data Gathered. IX. Statistical Ta-
bles. X. Sources of Error — Doubtful Nationality; Definition
of Intermarriage; "Specious" Second Generation. XI. Sta-
tistical Refinements Omitted.
CHAPTER III. Results 31
I. Intermarriage Within Generations. II. Increase in Pro-
portion of Intermarriage in Second Generation. III. Hy-
pothesis 1. Disparity in Sex Ratios among Marriageable
Persons ; Hypothesis 2. Rise in Economic Status ; Hypothesis
3. Weakening of Group Solidarity. IV. Grouping of Nation-
alities According to Ratio of Intermarriage. V. Intermar-
riage Between Jews and Non-Jews. VI. Miscegenation of
Whites and Negroes. VII. Amalgamation Among Northern
and Northwestern European Peoples. VIII. Fusion Among
Irish and Italians. IX. Increase of Proportion of Intermar-
riage of Second Generation Over First. X. Number of
Nationalities Intermarried with in Second Generation. XL
Apparent Choice of Nationalities in Second Generation.
XII. Occupation and Intermarriage. XIII. Culture Level and
Intermarriage. XIV. Summary of Significant Facts. XV.
Further Uses of Derived Tables and Original Data.
CHAPTER IV. Interpretations : The Bearing of the Results
Upon Public Policies of Assimilation 71
I. Need for Separating Scientific Explanations of Facts from
Their Ethical Evaluation. II. The Ideal of Ethnic Purity.
III. The Ideal of Rapid and Thorough Ethnic Amalgama-
tion. rV. The Ideal of Gradual Amalgamation. V. The
Ideal of Intellectual and Emotional Harmony. VI. Implica-
tions for General Sociological Theory.
CHAPTER V. Statistical Appendix 87
S [157
INTERMARRIAGE IN NEW YORK CITY
A Statistical Study of the Amalgamation of European Peoples
CHAPTER I.
Introduction: The Problem
i. lack of scientific data
By common agreement among competent students of
American social problems, the proper incorporation of the
foreign-born and of their immediate descendants into the
body politic is considered a question of basic national con-
cern. But although there is much discussion of a contro-
versial nature, both within the narrower circle of scholars
and among the public at large, it is based upon comparative-
ly scanty fundamental data. Unrelated, though frequently
keen observations, alternate with generalizations that are
superficial and often flippant, each based on more or less
specious race theories.
On the biological aspects of amalgamation in the
United States there is virtually no scientific information
available. Little is known of the extent of the fusion, of
the rate at which it is taking place, of the groups amalga-
mating quickly or slowly. Still less is known of the biol-
ogic effects in the actual cases of intermarriage, while the
subtle interplay in mixed marriages of different types of
mind and of culture has thus far almost completely eluded
the observation of the scientific student. "Much remains to
be done in the study of this subject," writes Professor
159] 7
8 INTERMARRIAGE IN NEW YORK CITY [i6o
Boas^, "and, considering our lack of knowledge of the most
elementary facts that determine the outcome of this process,
I feel it behooves us to be most cautious in our reason-
ing " Little more that can stand the test of scien-
tific criticism has been added to an understanding of the
sociological phases of the problem.^
II. CHARACTER OF THE NEW IMMIGRATION
The turning point in the character of immigration is
generally conceded to have been around 1882 which marks
the beginning of a strong migratory movement of the East-
ern and Southern European peoples as contrasted with the
earlier movements of Northern and Northwestern European
nationalities. The latter had come in comparatively small
groups ; they were ethnically related to each other, and they
tended to scatter over a wide area instead of concentrating
1 Franz Boas, The Mind of Primitive Man. Ch. X., Race Problems
in the United States, p. 263.
2 No exhaustive studies of the community life of the various im-
migrant groups are as yet available. The study of "Methods of Amer-
icanization" which is being conducted by the Carnegie Corporation of
New York, is perhaps the most comprehensive effort thus far launched
in this field of research. The results of the study have not yet been
published. The most elaborate single analysis is contained in the lewish
Communal Register for New York City, 1917-18, a survey of the activ-
ities of the Jewish Community of Greater New York. Other, more or
less authoritative sources are :
Reports of the Immigration Commission, Vol. I., pp. 494-497, Types
of Immigration Communities ; J. W. Jenks and W. J. Lauck, The Immi-
gration Problem, Ch. V., Manufacturing and Mining Commimities, pp.
72-79; Ch. VII., Immigrant Institutions; Report of the Commission on
Immigration to Massachusetts, Ch. IX., Sec. 2, Organizations Among
Immigrants for Self-Help ; Emily G. Balch, Our Slavic Fellow Citizens.
Ch. XVII., The Organized Life of Slavs in America ; H. P. Fairchild,
Greek Immigration to the United States; Grace Abbott, The Immigrant
and the Community ; Robert F. Foerster, The Italian Emigration of
Our Times; Lord, Trenor and Barrows, The Italian in America;
Thomas Burgess, Greeks in America; Enrico C. Sartorio, Social and
Religious Life of Italians in America; Archibald McQure, Leadership
l6i] INTRODUCTION: THE PROBLEM 9
in the cities. The problem of assimilation thus virtually
solved itself. Had the new settlers, who were ethnically dif-
ferent groups, come in small numbers or as detached indi-
viduals, their presence among the earlier comers would
hardly have attracted much attention. As it was, however,
the huge waves of immigration which flooded the shores of
America began slowly to arouse the fears of the native
population. The high water mark of the new immigration
was reached in 1907 when almost 1,300,000 immigrants
landed here.^ During the year ending June 30, 1914, very
nearly one and a quarter millions came, representing almost
forty nationalities in Europe.
The outstanding features, then, of immigration during
the 30 years before the European War were the steady rise,
on the whole, in the volume of the incoming flow and the
massing of the foreign-born in the large commercial and
industrial centres. While the proportionate number of
foreign-born whites in the United States increased only
slightly in this period, the absolute number increased from
a little over six and a half millions to thirteen and a half
millions.* Still more significant was the growth of the
foreign colonies, which doubled and trebled their num-
bers between 1890 and 1910.'^ This was especially marked
among the peoples from Eastern and Southern Europe.
A very considerable portion of the foreign-born, it was con-
stantly pointed out, cannot speak English at all, and a
still larger number have only a fragmentary knowledge
of it.« ""
of the New America, Racial and Religious; H. B. Grose, Aliens or
Americans, Ch. VII, Immigration and the National Character, The
American of To-morrow ; Wm. P. Shriver, Immigrant Forces, Ch, III.,
The New Communities.
8 Report of the Commissioner General of Immigration, 1915, p. 122,
Table XV.
4 nth Census, 1910, Vol. I., Pop. Stat. p. 831, Table 32.
5 Uth Census, 1910, Vol. I., Pop. Stat. p. 854, Table 37.
6 Basing its estimate upon the census of 1910, the Bureau of Educa-
tion of the Department of the Interior gives for the United States
lO INTERMARRIAGE IN NEW YORK CITY [162
III. THE MOVEMENT FOR AMERICANIZATION
The growing seriousness of the problems arising from
the presence of large numbers of unassimilated aliens had
come to be recognized long before the outbreak of the
Great War. Congestion, unsanitary housing, industrial
exploitation, undue strain upon educational facilities for
children and adults were increasing more rapidly than the
number of effective social measures calculated to remedy
them. While publicists and students of race problems had
begun the discussion in a more or less tentative spirit
Foreign born whites, ten years of age or over, unable
to speak English 2,953,011
(Foreign born whites, 21 years of age and over, un-
able to speak English, 2,565,612)
Colored population, ten years of age and over, unable
to speak English, (Negro, Indian, Chinese, Jap-
anese, etc.) 138,196
Making a total, unable to speak English, of 3,091,207
From 1910 to 1919, according to the annual reports of the Com-
missioner General of Immigration, over 4,000,000 immigrants arrived
from non-English speaking countries. Therefore, it has been estimated
that there are at least 5,000,000 non-English speaking persons in the
United States at present.
For detailed figures of foreign bom whites, men and women 10
years of age and over, by States, unable to speak English, see Circulars
No. 30, 33, 34, Bureau of Education, Department of the Interior; also
Bulletin Americanization for June 1st, 1919, p. 16.
The inability to read and understand English not only handicaps
the foreigner in his pursuit of a livelihood, but in some occupations
places him in danger of his life. According to the director of the
United States Bureau of Mines, the rate of accidents among the non-
English speaking miners is not only greater in the great mining dis-
tricts of the country, but the increased ratio is uniform in all districts.
In his opinion, this demonstrates clearly that the inability to read warn-
ing signs, to comprehend fully the company's instructions and to under-
stand their foremen, places an unnecessary hazard upon the foreign-
born. In the Pennsylvania anthracite mines, for example, the figures
show that 43% of the employees are English speaking and this num-
ber is charged with only 28.8% of the fatalities, whereas the other 36%
sustained 71% of the fatalities. This is a comparative ratio of 669 to
163] INTRODUCTION: THE PROBLEM n
of speculation/ and settlements and social centres were
pointing the way towards a clearer and more sympathetic
understanding of the life of the foreign-born, it was not
until 1907 that a federal immigration commission was ap-
1268 against the non- English speaking. In the Pennsylvania bituminous
mines the ratio is 771 to 1123 and in the West Virginia district 790 to
1424. The report is concluded by the statement: "Had the fatality
and injury rate for the English speaking Americans been maintained
throughout the three groups there would have been a saving of 716
fatalities and 900 very serious injuries, a strong argument for Ameri-
canization and education of the miner." Abstract of report by Van H.
Manning, Director of the U. S. Bureau of Mines. Bulletin, Americani-
zation, June 1st, 1919, p. 11.
Similarly, the value of English in curbing traffic accidents is coming
to be stressed by transportation experts. They urge communities to
stress to the foreign-born resident that a knowledge of the English lan-
guage will help reduce the death list of 10,000 persons estimated to be
the United States' annual toll to public carelessness, and ignorance of
highway traffic. "Americanization committees," says W. P. Eno,
chairman of the Advisory Committee of the Highway Transport Com-
mittee of the Council of National Defense, an international authority
on traffic regulation, "should investigate their local conditions in this
respect and should ask for the strictest enforcement of the English
language test (for driver's license). Traffic offers an unlimited study
of primary value upon which to base the lessons of the evening schools.
It is a topic of as much universal appeal as the purchase of food or
the employment office dialogue, for at some time during the day,
practically every born foreign man or woman must use the streets."
Bulletin, Americanization, June 1, 1919, p. 14.
"^ Among numerous articles the following may serve as illustrations :
a. G. Michaud, and F. H. Giddings, The Coming Race in America.
Century Magazine, March, 1903, Vol. 65, pp. 683-692.
b. F. H. Giddings, The American People, International Quarterly,
Vol. 7, Number 2, June, 1903.
c. M. Fishberg, Ethnic Factors in Immigration, Proceedings, Na-
tional Conference of Charities and Correction, 1906, pp. 304-314.
d. Wm. Z. Ripley, The European Population of the U. S., Huxley
Memorial Lecture for 1908. The Journal of the Royal Anthro-
pological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, Vol. XXXVIII.
1908.
e. A, Alleman, Immigration and the Future American Race, Pop.
Sci. Monthly, December, 1909, Vol. 5, pp. 586-596.
12 INTERMARRIAGE IN NEW YORK CITY [164
pointed which, four years later, issued its comprehensive
report of more than forty volumes.
But it was the war crisis (July, 1914 to November,
1918) that brought the question of the assimilation of the
foreign-born to a head. Americanization activities multi-
plied rapidly.^ The propaganda of the Bureau of Naturali-
zation, the "America First" campaign of the U. S. Bureau of
Education, the organization of the committee of One Hun-
dred of the National Education Association, the organiza-
tion of committees on Americanization by various trade
associations and chambers of commerce and other similar
efforts culminated in the conference on methods of Amer-
icanization in Washington, on May 12-15, 1919, called
by the Secretary of the Interior.
As a result of the interchange of opinions and of ex-
periences effected by the Conference, it became clear that
if the problem of the proper incorporation of the foreign-
born was to be adequately treated, future efforts must pro-
ceed along three important lines, namely, the establish-
ment of more intimate and more sympathetic personal re-
lations between the native-born population and the alien
groups, stressing particularly the need and the value of the
cultural contributions of the foreign-born to American life ;
the co-ordination of the manifold Americanization activities
throughout the country to eliminate duplication of work and
to save energy and initiative; the promotion of co-opera-
tion between the Federal and the State governments in the
field of Americanization, definitely recognizing the national
scope and character of the question. Steps have already
been taken to secure Congressional legislation upon this
subject.®
8 For a brief account of the efforts made to arouse public interest in
Americanization, see article by Howard C. Hill, "The Americanization
Movement," American Journal of Sociology, May, 1919.
• As an illustration may be cited the Smith-Bankhead bill on Ameri-
canization (S. 5464 — H. R. 15402) now before Congress.
165] INTRODUCTION: THE PROBLEM 13
IV. NEED FOR A NEW APPROACH
In the meantime nothing has impressed itself more
definitely upon the mind of the critical student of the Amer-
icanization movement as a whole, than the more or less
superficial character of the efforts made thus far and the
'urgent need of approaching the problem from a more se-
cure basis than can be furnished by cursory observation
and reflection/ It would, of course, be unwise to discard
altogether the results arrived at in these two ways, since
it is through suggestions which they yield that valuable
working hypotheses may be framed and an understanding
obtained of the inner meaning of the problem. Neverthe-
less, it is hazardous to be guided solely by such findings
in formulating public policies of assimilation. The basic
facts sought, should, if possible, be measurable quantities.
They should, among other things, throw light upon such
vital questions as the degree of actual amalgamation or
biologic fusion among the European peoples and their de-
scendants in the United States, the groups among which the
amalgamation is occurring and the social and economic con-
ditions under which the fusion is proceeding.
While in a strictly scientific study the facts bearing
upon these questions would have to be kept distinct from
their interpretations or ethical evaluations, nevertheless the
data gathered could serve as a much needed new approach
to the discussion of the public policy to be followed in the
proper incorporation of the immigrant groups.
v. AIM OF THIS STUDY
It is the aim of this study to make a beginning in this
direction, by analyzing the situation as it presents itself in
one of the large immigrant centers in the United States.
The following monograph, accordingly, is devoted to set-
ting forth some of the facts bearing upon the amalgama-
tion of European peoples in New York City during a rep-
resentative five-year period before the Great War (1908-
1912).
CHAPTER II.
Method and Scope
1. earlier methods of studying the problem of
amalgamation
A natural consequence of the lack of quantitative data
bearing upon the amalgamation of peoples of different
stocks is that statistical methods of treatment of the prob-
lem have not been fully developed. Whatever work has
been done is either historical or observational in its content
and method. Instances of group interaction in the past are
selected, the general results noted from an analysis of his-
torical records, and conclusions drawn that have more or
less universal validity.^ Or, the process of assimilation is
carefully observed in the case of living social groups.^
In all research of this nature, definite limits are set
by the authenticity of the historical evidence, by the
small number of proper examples illustrating the process,
1 A striking illustration of this type of work is that by Ludwig
Gumplowicz, Der Rassenkampf; also Sarah E. Simons, Social Assim-
ilation, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 7, July-May, 1901-1902;
Part II, V. Assimilation in the Ancient World; VI. Assimilation
during the Middle Ages.
2 Simons, Ibid., Part II, VII, Assimilation in the Western World
(including Russia, Austria-Hungary, Germany, United States.) An
ingenious method of 'study is employed in The Polish Peasant in Europe
and America, Monograph of an Immigrant Groups by Wm. I. Thomas
and Florian Znaniecki. Through an analysis of a series of peasant let-
ters and autobiographical materials, light is thrown upon the organiza-
tion of Polish peasant group-life and its modification in a new environ-
ment.
14 [i66
167] METHOD AND SCOPE 15
by the skill and social insight the student exhibits in the
interpretation of the facts and by the validity of the theory
of race fusion the writer happens to espouse.
With the development of statistical science, quantitative
methods will doubtless come to supply the deficiencies in a
substantial manner. It is even possible to conceive, with-
out an undue stretch of the scientific imagination, that
experimentation may be added as a further device for ar-
riving at the social laws underlying the process of group
interaction. The situation in the United States strongly
suggests such a possibility. Here is to be found the
requisite human material in great abundance and variety.
Here group and class consciousness are, relatively speaking,
less intense and less exclusive than perhaps in any other
country. Consequently, while the biologic factors involved
may possibly for a long time elude social control, the socio-
psychic forces generated in the group contacts are certainly
more amenable to conscious manipulation. At any rate,
students are beginning to point out the unique opportunity
America possesses in this respect.
II. GENERAL METHOD AND LIMITATIONS OF THIS STUDY
In this monograph the method followed is that of a
statistical analysis of pertinent data contained in authentic
marriage certificates. The general plan is to present the
facts, as such, in the form of suitable statistical tables, to
frame and test hypotheses to explain these facts, and to
exclude from the discussion the ethical evaluation of the
results themselves.
No attempt, however, is made to treat the subject ex-
haustively or to go into statistical refinements. Indeed, this
could hardly have been possible or justifiable with the ma-
terials at hand and with the limitations under which the
statistical analysis itself had to proceed. There was, first,
the lack of certain important figures necessary for more de-
tailed comparisons between the various ethnic groups and
for calculating corrections. Thus the basic figures showing
l6 INTERMARRIAGE IN NEW YORK CITY [i68
the number of marriageable men and women for each immi-
grant group separately and for each "generation"^ (foreign-
born of foreign parents, native-bom of foreign parents and
native-born of native parents) separately, are at present
available only in the form of estimates and could therefore
be used only to a limited degree in the comparisons between
the broad "generation" groups. But even if the data lacking
had been obtainable, it is doubtful if very much more ac-
curate results would have been achieved, since, owing to the
large number of cases involved, the significant facts stand
out almost as clearly as they would if corrected figures could
be calculated. Furthermore, it is clear that an adequate
study of the problem of amalgamation would involve the
gathering and the analysis of additional data on the situa-
tion in smaller cities and towns throughout the country, and
possibly also in the rural sections; on the biologic aspects
of ethnic fusion, such as the relative fecundity of mixed mar-
riages,* the physical and mental vigor of the offspring; and
on the sociological phases, such as the cultural effects of
mixed marriages upon the home life, including the question
of family desertion*^ and intermarriage and divorce.®
In view of these definite limitations, this monograph can
3 The term "generation" as used in this study denotes not an age
group, but a "nativity" and a "parentage" group; that is, it refers to
the fact of the birth of a person in the United States or in a foreign
country, whether of foreign born parents or of native born parents.
Differences between persons of different "generations," then, do not
mean differences of age, at all, but rather differences of traditions, social
attitudes, outlooks, in short, differences of civilization and culture. The
"first" generation (foreign-born of foreign parents or FBFP, the ab-
breviated form used in the statistical tables) would thus be the one
furthest removed from what we think of as "American" life, the
"second" generation (native-born of foreign parents or NBFP) would
mark the transition period, the "third" generation (native-born of
native parents, or NBNP) would very nearly represent the "Ameri-
canized" product.
* An interesting study of relative fecundity among amalgamating
peoples is that of A. E. Jenks, Ethnic Census in Minneapolis, American
Journal of Sociology, Vol. 17, July-May, 1911-12, pp. 776-782. "The
169] METHOD AND SCOPE 17
claim simply to present some tentative conclusions and par-
tial generalizations. More specifically it attempts :
1. To ascertain some of the more significant facts and
probable explanations of these facts, showing the general
trend in the fusion of the various European peoples, as it is
proceeding in a large centre like New York City.
2. To point out by way of these illustrations how fuller
data could be treated to yield significant results.
3. To indicate the possibilities for some further statis-
tical studies on the basis of some of the original source
material presented in the Statistical Appendix of this mono-
graph.
4. To set out briefly the larger bearings of such data as
are brought together in this study, upon public policies of
assimilation.
The first three topics are the subject of Chapter III. The
fourth is treated in a summary fashion in Chapter IV.
III. INTERMARRIAGE RATIO AS INDEX OF ASSIMILATION
Before proceeding to a detailed discussion of the data
presented in Chapter III, the following brief statement of
the most important considerations of method and scope may
serve as a useful introduction :
A study of the facts of intermarriage offers a reasonably
Irish blood tends to increase fecundity and Scandinavian blood tends to
decrease fecundity of other peoples in amalgamation."
5 Differences in nationality between husband and wife have been
found to be a contributing cause to desertion. "The 138 cases in which
there was a difference of nationality formed about 28% of the 499 for
which information on this point was given. In the general population
of the United States in 1900 only 8.5% was of mixed parentage and
for New York City the proportion was less than 13% . . A
difference in nationality was more than twice as frequent among the
cases of desertion as among the general population of the city where
it is most common." .Family Desertion, Lillian Brandt, pp. 18-19,
a report published by The Charity Organization Society of New York,
1905.
® For the proportion of divorce in marriages between Jews and non-
Jews, see Maurice Fishbers, The Jews, p. 217.
l8 INTERMARRIAGE IN NEW YORK CITY [170
secure base from which to begin a scientific study of the
whole problem of assimilation. Several reasons tend to
confirm this view. Intermarriage, as such, is perhaps the
severest test of group cohesion. Individuals who freely pass
in marriage from one ethnic circle into another are not under
the spell of an intense cultural or racial consciousness.
Consequently, the greater the number of mixed marriages
the weaker, broadly speaking, the group solidarity. More-
over, such a test as this is quantative. Statistics of inter-
marriage furnish concrete and measurable materials in a
field where such data are as urgently needed as they are
hard to secure. The intermarriage ratio, therefore, obtained
on the basis of facts collected from authentic marriage cer-
tificates, can be used as a good index of assimilation.
It may be urged, however, that the ratio of intermar-
riage is not the only test of assimilation, as is proved by
the mental and social assimilation of individuals and of
groups, without actual amalgamation ; that a more accurate
test of group cohesion would perhaps be affiliation with spe-
cific and characteristic communal activities of the immi-
grant groups. Were this test applied, the lack of cohesion
and disintegration of group life among the immigrant peo-
ples would be found to be far greater and more wide-spread
than the ratios of intermarriage seem to indicate. Thus,
while the proportion of intermarriage among the Jews is
very low,^ the ratio of the unsynagogued (that is, those
upon whom the synagogue, the characteristic Jewish social
institution, has a much less vital hold than in the past) is
rather high.® To cite this instance, however, is to show that
the exception proves the rule. Unless there exists a strong
racial self-consciousness, which tends to bar biological
7 See Table IVa, p. 43.
^Jewish Communal Register, 1917-18. Afifiliation with the Syna-
gogue, by Prof. M. M. Kaplan, p. 117. Out of 900,000 Jews in New
York City only about 415,000 are synagogue Jews, and out of a seating
capacity of 217,725 there are only 39,260 seats in synagogues where
English sermons are preached.
171 ] METHOD AND SCOPE 19
fusion with other religious and cultural groups, there is
comparatively little to prevent amalgamation, once super-
ficial differences of habit-life have been swept away in the
course of living and working together. While, therefore, the
proportion of intermarriage might be taken to indicate the
minimum measure of group solidarity, it is evident that the
higher the proportion of intermarriage, the lower is the
degree of cohesion, or, to put it differently, the higher the
proportion of intermarriage, the higher is the degree of
assimilation with other groups. If the ratio of inter-
marriage among persons of the second generation (native-
born of foreign parents) is found to be considerably higher
than that among the first generation, it is certain that lack
of affiliation with immigrant communal life is correspond-
ingly high and even higher. To argue from facts of inter-
marriage of ethnic groups, then, is to err by under-estimat-
ing rather than over-estimating the extent of assimilation.
IV. SELECTION OF AMERICAN COMMUNITY FOR STUDY
Coming now to the question of selecting an American
community for study, it would seem that of all American
cities. Greater New York is more admirably fitted for such
an inquiry than perhaps any other community that might be
chosen. Here are gathered together nationalities and races
from all lands and all climes. Here immigrant colonies
flourish. Here opportunity for self-sufficient communal
life is as complete as is possible away from the native soil.
Yet here there is mobility and contact, subtle temptation of
all kinds to break with the old tradition and blend with the
attractive stranger. In this. New York City is typical of all
other large American cities that have received their share
of the immigration of the last twenty-five or thirty years."
^ Of the foreign-born whites in the United States in 1910 no less
than 72.2% were in urban communities (cities of 2500 and above),
56.1% were in cities of 25,000 and more. U. S. Census, 1910, Pop. Stat.
Vol. I, p. 172. Table 32. Of fifty cities of 100,000 inhabitants or more
20 INTERMARRIAGE IN NEW YORK CITY [172
To be representative of the country as a whole the inter-
marriage statistics gathered for such a community as New
York would, of course, have to be supplemented by figures
for smaller towns and cities and for rural districts. But
here again, the ratio for the larger centre would be, so to
speak, the lower limit, or the minimum ratio. If fusion
goes on in the bigger city, then, a fortiori, it will go on in
the smaller place. All that is known of community life in
minor centres and in rural districts tends to confirm this
view. The more intimate contact with the much smaller
native population, the heightened economic ability to marry
due to a less severe competition in earning a living, the lack
of stimuli for a group consciousness, (such as a large mass-
ing of the foreign-born, the presence of intensely national-
istic leaders, the existence of communal institutions, e.g., the
foreign language press, theatre and special social wel-
fare agencies meeting the needs of the immigrants apart
from the general community) all these strongly suggest
such an opinion, until evidence is presented to the contrary.
v. SOURCE OF DATA
The figures offered in this monograph were gathered
from original marriage certificates in the files of the office
of the City Clerk of New York City. Only records for the
in 1910, thirty had a foreign-bom white population amounting to more
than 25% of their total population. N. Y. City had a foreign-born
white population of 40.4%. Only two other cities, Fall River, Mass.
(42.6%) and Lowell, Mass. (40.9%) had a higher percentage than
Greater New York. J. W. Jenks and W. J. Lauck, The Immigration
Problem, p. 527, Table 27.
The presence of a rather small proportion of persons of colored
races (black, yellow, red) in New York City adds rather than detracts
from the propriety of the choice of that city, as this study is devoted
primarily to an analysis of amalgamation among European peoples. In
1910 the negro population of New York City was 91,709 or 1.9% of
the total. Indians, Chinese, Japanese and all others together numbered
6,012. U. S. Census, 1910. Vol. I, Pop. Stat., p. 178. Table 37.
173] METHOD AND SCOPE 21
Boroughs of Manhattan and Bronx were available for in-
spection. This enforced delimitation of territory, does not
however affect the results materially, as the population of
these two boroughs differs in no fundamental respect from
the inhabitants of the excluded three Boroughs of Brooklyn,
Richmond and Queens.^**.
VI. NUMBER OF RECORDS ANALYZED
The total number of marriage licenses issued during the
five years (1908-1912), covering the period studied, was
171,356 distributed as follows:
Year Number of Licenses
Issued
1908 29,491
1909 31,597
1910 34,657
1911 36,621
1912 : 38,990
TOTAL 171,356
Of this total, 101,854 or 59.4% were selected for this
inquiry. From this number, however, were excluded all
marriages where either the bride or the groom was born
in the United States of native-born parents (NBNP).
This was necessary, since the original nationality in such
cases could not be determined, and "American" nationality,
as such, was a doubtful term. Jews and Negroes of the
third generation (native born of native parents) were not
excluded because, in the one case, religion and race, in the
other, color (race), was a clear enough distinction marking
10 Out of a total population of 4,766,883 for New York City in 1910,
the Boroughs of Manhattan and Bronx had 2,762,522 or 57.9%. The
proportions of foreign-born in the various Boroughs were : Manhattan,
47.9%; Bronx, 34.7%; Brooklyn, 35.2%; Queens, 27.9%; Richmond,
28.4%. U. S. Census, 1910. Pop. Stat., Vol. I.
22 INTERMARRIAGE IN NEW YORK CITY [174
the groups as separate. For the immediate purposes of the
study, then, only 79,704 marriages or couples were con-
sidered.
This substantial portion of the total number of certifi-
cates issued (59.4%) was selected by a broad sampling
process as indicated below, and is thus sufficiently repre-
sentative.
VII. METHOD OF SELECTION
The selection of the five year period (1908-1912) was
guided by three considerations. The first was the lack of
complete data before 1908. Beginning with that year the
contract form of marriage record, with hardly any informa-
tion except the names and addresses of the contracting
parties, was replaced by a rather elaborate questionnaire
form. Moreover, the census year, 1910, appeared to be a
useful pivotal year for purposes of comparison in dealing
with the figures gathered for the two years previous to
and the two years succeeding the taking of the Federal
census. The fact, also, that abnormal social influences
(such as arose out of the Great War which opened in
August, 1914), were not operative as yet in the lives of the
foreign-born, marked the period as acceptable for study.
The records selected (101,854) were spread over the five
year period in such a way that approximately 20,000 cases
fell within each year. These were further distributed about
evenly over every month of every year, and over the begin-
ning, middle and end of each month of the year. This
precaution was necessary in order to take account of the
fluctuation in the number of marriages during the more or
less "popular" and "unpopular" parts of the year. Thus
during the early summer months (particularly May and
June) and the later months of the fall (such as October and
November) a larger number of marriage certificates is
issued than during the other months. Otherwise the
records were examined as they appeared serially in the
record books.
175] METHOD AND SCOPE 23
Each marriage certificate was carefully examined and
the pertinent facts summarized on individual record cards.
VIII. KINDS OF DATA GATHERED
The following kinds of data were taken from the mar-
riage certificates:
1. Country of birth of Groom
2. Country of birth of Bride
3. Country of birth of Groom's father
4. Country of birth of Groom's mother
5. Country of birth of Bride's father
6. Country of birth of Bride's mother
7. Occupation of Groom (whenever given)
8. Occupation of Bride (whenever given)
9. Generation of Groom^^ (FBFP, 1st generation)
(NBFP, 2nd generation)
(NBNP, 3rd generation)
10. Generation of Bride^^ (FBFP, ist generation)
(NBFP, 2nd generation)
(NBNP, 3rd generation)
11. Color of Groom
12. Color of Bride.
IX. STATISTICAL TABLES
The facts were then classified in various ways, to yield
the following statistical tables which form the basis of the
discussion in Chapter III:
Group A: Tables containing facts on intermarriage, accord-
ing to generation,* among ethnic groups in New
York City.
Table I — Intermarriage between persons of dif-
ferent generations. (Men.)
11 See p. 16, Note 3.
♦For the explanation of the term "generation" as used in this
monograph, see p. 16, Note 3.
24 INTERMARRIAGE IN NEW YORK CITY [176
Table II — Intermarriage between persons of
different generations. (Women.)
Table III — Proportion of intermarriage accord-
ing to sex and generation.
Group B: Tables containing proportion of intermarriage
among the various nationalities represented in
this study.
Table IV (a) — Proportions of intermarriage ar-
ranged in order of magnitude, in five classes.
(Class I-Class V), for men and women of
the 1st, 2nd and 3rd generations considered
together as a group.
Tables IV (b)— IV (i) Proportions of inter-
marriage arranged in order of magnitude, in
five classes (Class I-Class V) for men and
women separately and for each generation
separately.
Table V — Summary Table showing proportions
of intermarriage among the nationalities
studied (nationalities arranged alphabetic-
ally).
Table VI — Number of intermarriages for each
nationality separately (showing nationalities
intermarried with and generations of persons
intermarrying) .
Series 1-91 : One table for the men of each
of the nationalities considered in the study.
Series 1-88 : One table for the women of
each of the nationalities considered in the
study.
Table VII — Classification of nationalities by
percentage of increase in intermarriage of
2nd generation over 1st generation.
Group C : Tables containing facts on number of nationali-
177] METHOD AND SCOPE 25
ties intermarried with and nationalities selected in
intermarriage.
Table VIII — Number of distinct nationali-
ties with which persons of various immi-
grant groups intermarried.
Table IX — Nationalities selected in intermar-
riage by persons of 2nd generation.
Group D: Tables containing facts on the relations be-
tween occupation, cultural level and intermar-
riage.
Table X — Proportion of intermarriage accord-
ing to occupation groups.
Table XI — Proportion of intermarriage accord-
ing to occupation and culture level.
Table XII — Proportion of intermarriage accord-
ing to occupation and generation (men and
women).
Table XIII — Proportion of intermarriage
among men according to occupation and
generation.
Group E: Miscellaneous Tables:
Table XIV — Proportion of marriageable per-
sons among various immigrant groups
(1910-1917), upon their entrance to the
United States.
Table XV — Proportion of sexes in the first and
second generations among various nationali-
ties in N. Y. City (1910) according to gen-
eration.
Table XVI — Proportion of marriageable per-
sons in N. Y. City (1910) according to gen-
eration.
Table XVII — Proportion of marriageable per-
sons in Manhattan and Bronx Boroughs,
in New York City (1910), according to gen-
eration.
26 INTERMARRIAGE IN NEW YORK CITY [178
X. SOURCES OF ERROR
In the gathering and the treatment of the data several
sources of error had to be kept in mind. There was first,
the possibility of error arising out of a misjudgment of the
nationality of either the groom or the bride or both. In
the cases of natives of such countries as England, Scotland,
Ireland, Germany, Sweden, Norway, Denmark and others
with a relatively homogeneous population, the facts as given
in the marriage certificate (country of birth of bride and of
groom, and country of birth of parents of both) were suf-
ficiently clear to make the proper judgment. However,
for countries like Austria-Hungary and Russia, as they
were before the Great War, the persons belonging to
the various constituent populations had to be separated as
carefully as possible. The nationalities in the former
Austro-Hungarian Monarchy were found to fall into the
following groups :
Austria (Bohemian)
Austria (German)
Austria (Polish)
Austria (Jewish)
Hungary (Slovak)
Hungary (German)
Hungary (Hungarian)
Hungary (Jewish)
The marriage records contained suflficient information
to make the classification in these cases fairly reliable.
These items were taken into consideration:
1. Geographic section of the country of birth of
both persons who married and his or her parents.
(The various nationalities in these countries are
concentrated in certain well-defined areas).
2. Name of groom and of bride (distinctive Bohem-
ian or German or Jewish or Slovak or Hungarian
or Polish name).
179] METHOD AND SCOPE 27
3. Names of witnesses to the marriage ceremony.
4. Name of the priest or clergyman officiating. In
quite a number of cases the clergyman was well-
known in New York City as belonging to a definite
religious sect and a definite nationality.
Wherever there was doubt, the record was omitted.
For both Austria-Hungary and Russia, the Jews were
classified under the heads: Austria (Jew), Hungary (Jew)
and Russia (Jew). In a similar manner, the Jews of all
other countries were indicated separately, as Rumanian
Jews, German Jews, French Jews, English Jews, American
Jews, and so on. Of course, in the records of intermarriages
between Jews and non-Jews even greater care had to be
exercised to include only genuine intermarriages. Here
the determining facts were:
1. Country of birth of groom and bride.
2. Country of birth of parents of groom and bride.
3. Name of groom and bride.
4. Names of witnesses.
5. Name of officiating clergyman.
Only those cases were recorded where there was abso-
lutely no doubt as to the intermarriage. This naturally
would make the intermarriage ratio lower than it probably
is in actuality ; for, numerous Jews and Jewesses who inter-
marry drop their original Jewish names and adopt non-
Jewish names. Moreover, in intermarriages between Jews
and non-Jews it is very frequent not to have a clergyman
of either faith perform the ceremony, thus accentuating
the lack of religious affiliation of the parties to the mar-
riage.
Still another source of error that must be noted, is one
arising out of the definition of what constitutes an inter-
marriage. Two interpretations are possible, a strict and
a liberal one. According to the first, an inter-marriage is a
marriage between two persons of distinct national, religious
28 INTERMARRIAGE IN NEW YORK CITY [i8o
or racial descent (the nationality of the father being taken
as the nationality of the child). A marriage between an
Italian man born in Italy of Italian parents or born in the
United States of Italian parents, and an English woman
born in England of English parents or born in the United
States of English parents would be a case in point. Another
illustration of this type of marriage (somewhat less strict)
is that between a man born in Scotland whose father was
Scotch and whose mother was French, and a woman born
in Sweden, whose father was Swedish and whose mother
was German. According to this definition, cases in which
the mothers of both bride and groom were of the same na-
tionalities or were born in the United States would be ex-
cluded.
A more liberal definition, however, might be framed.
This would include all cases where either the fathers or
the mothers of the parties to the inter-marriage were of
the same nationality. An illustration of this type of mar-
riage would be the case of the Irish groom, whose father
was Irish and whose mother was Italian, and the bride
whose father was German and whose mother was Italian.
Here the fathers are of different nationalities but the
mothers are of the same nationalities.
In this study the broader definition was followed : but
since the proportion of cases that would have to be ex-
cluded according to a strict interpretation of intermarriage
was found to be only 3.03%, the results can hardly be ap-
preciably affected by their inclusion.
One other source of error that could not have been
avoided must be pointed out. The original marriage records
give the age of the person marrying, but (for the foreign-
born) give neither the year of arrival in the United States
nor the length of residence in this country. It is thus
impossible to tell how old the foreign-born man or woman
was at the time of arrival. The person may have been less
than a year old or may have been 14 years of age or 18
years or 25 years. And yet, in each of these cases, the
l8i] METHOD AND SCOPE 2g
person is considered as of the "first generation" with all
that this term implies."
It can thus plausibly be argued that the "first genera-
tion" group considered in this study may in reality not be
a group consisting of adult foreigners upon whom the old
world culture had left an unmistakeable impress, and who
are therefore quite distinct from the native-born "second
generation" as social types. The "first generation" cannot
then be contrasted with the "second generation", for, the
"first generation" may include a large proportion of foreign-
born who came here at a very early age, grew up in a new-
world environment and are practically, if not completely,
the same in behavior, in outlook, in sentiment as the true
"second generation". In other words, the "first generation"
group considered here may be a sort of "specious" "second
generation" group, and much of the reasoning about it as a
"first generation" group would really not be applicable.
It must be admitted that theoretically there is much
force in the objection, and that this criticism cannot be fully
met, since the necessary data are lacking in the marriage
records themselves. In spite of this difficulty, however,
the figures "are not by any means seriously invalidated.
Reasoning from an inspection of the actual results obtained,
on the assumption that the two groups are distinct "gen-
eration" groups, it may be said that the differences between
the intermarriage ratios of the two groups are obviously
so striking that there must be a great qualitative distinc-
tion between the groups considered. If the proportion of
intermarriage for the "first generation" as a group is 11 per
100 and the proportion for the "second generation" is 31
per hundred (with a wider range by far, for specific nation-
alities) then, a priori, the view would seem plausible that
the assumed "first generation" is most probably composed
of social types quite different from those comprising the
"second generation" group. Of course, as all a priori
^2 For a definition of "gfeneration" as used here, see Chanter II,
p. 16, Note 3.
30 INTERMARRIAGE IN NEW YORK CITY [182
arguments, this has its definite limitations and ought to be
checked if possible by a recourse to an analysis of the facts
themselves. These, however, are not available at present.
XI. STATISTICAL REFINEMENTS OMITTED
As was pointed out before, the figures gathered here
have not been and could not be treated according to refined
statistical methods, primarily because of the lack of cer-
tain basic figures in accurate enough form. An exact
analysis of group cohesion in each of the immigrant groups
involved and therefore significant comparison, could not
be undertaken. Moreover, the number of marriages re-
corded in some of the groups is too small to yield significant
proportions in themselves. Only results derived from the
mass figures are consequently of real meaning. But this
is all that is needed to bring to light the main tendencies in
the process of fusion as it is at present proceeding in large
American cities. It is open to serious doubt whether fur-
ther refinements would substantially alter the conclusions
reached.
CHAPTER III.
Results
The aim of this chapter, as stated above, is to present
the most significant facts and their probable explanations,
derived from the data compiled in Tables I-XVII (see Chap-
ter II, pp. 23-25), to indicate how these analyses could
serve for further researches along the same lines, and finally
to point out how some of the source material can be utilized
for more detailed studies.
I. INTERMARRIAGE WITHIN GENERATIONS
Viewing the phenomenon of amalgamation in the broad-
est way, namely, that of fusion among persons of different
generations, (for a definition of "generation" see Chapter II,
p. 16, Note 3) the first striking fact that appears is, that
almost three-fourths of the intermarriages, (74.0%) both
among men and among women take place between persons
of the same generations. That is, members of the first genera-
tion tend to intermarry with members of the first, members the
second generation with members of the second.^ Upon reflec-
tion this would seem to be the natural result. Differences
between generations are primarily differences in stage of as-
similation.
Immigrants of the first generation belonging to different
national groups have more in common with one another
than they have with persons of the second generation. But
it is a sort of negative community of interest. The foreign-
born man and woman both do not yet speak the language
of the country well enough ; both have not yet acquired the
^ The reason for omitting the third generation is given in the Ex-
planatory Note, Table I, p. 33.
183] 31
32 INTERMARRIAGE IN NEW YORK CITY [184
new habits of life, and still hark back in their thoughts and
actions to the European environment. Both are in the first
I stages of a transition and both feel more at ease among
■persons of the first generation, (even though these be of a dif-
ferent nationality), than among persons of the second gen-
eration, who by their superior knowledge of the strange
land and by a subtly condescending manner make the for-
eigners feel rather apart from the new currents of life.
At any rate, this would seem a plausible explanation of the
fact.
That persons of the second generation, though of dififerent
national descent, should group together in marriage, is still
more easily understood. The irresistible levelling influ-
ences of American life have stamped persons of the second
generation as unmistakeably alike, though largely only out-
wardly alike. They speak the same tongue, study in the
same schools, dress, act, and think alike. Another fact
tending to confirm this view is, that the proportion of inter-
marriage between persons of different generations de-
creases as the interval between the generations increases.
This holds for both men and women. Out of almost 11,000
intermarriages (10,835) practically one-half (47.7%) were
intermarriages between persons of the first generation.
About three and a half times as many intermarriages oc-
curred between first generation men and first generation
women, as between first generation men and second gen-
eration women {A7.7% and 13.8% respectively) and about
two and a half times as many between second generation
men and second generation women, as between second gen-
eration men and first generation women (26.3% and 9.4%
respectively.)^
The figures for the women are similar. Intermarriages
between first generation zuomen and first generation men
were five times as frequent as those between first genera-
tion women and second generation men (47.7% and 9.4%
respectively) while about twice as many intermarriages
2 See Table I, p. 33
i85]
RESULTS
33
o
z
o
rf
cc
s
^
^
z
UJ
Ul
5
°5 :>.
a
. C3
lis
Oh a '^
03 _D
53 c« m £
Oi "S
00 o
"S § § o
33 •-! '^ ID
a " «« fa
§ fe c
illl
-« 2 o ^
lil^
«« w) 4j a
o -o S o
9 -Ja -S ■■§
• - t! a 2
1^3 I
o 3 § =^
*3rd Gener.
(NB NP)
Men
with ■
2nd Gener.
(NB FP)
Women
?s
'-0
*3rd Gener.
(NB NP)
xMen
with
1st Gener.
(FB FP)
Women
s
<o
*3rd Gener.
(NB NP)
Men
v/ith
*3rd Gener.
(NB NP)
Women
-
2nd Gener.
(NB FP)
Men
with
*3rd Gener.
(NB NP)
Women
"
00
2ud Gener.
(NB FP)
Men
with
1st Gener.
(FB FP)
Women
00
o
2nd Gener.
(NB FP)
Men
with
2nd Gener.
(NB FP)
Women
1
CO
1st Gener.
(FB FP)
Men
with
*3rd Gener.
(NB NP)
Women
s
T»<
1st Gener.
(FB FP)
Men
with
2nd Gener.
(NB FP)
Women
•*
00
CO
1st Gener.
(FB FP)
Men
with
1st Gener.
(FB FP)
Women
1
s
1st, 2nd
and 3rd
Generation
Men
with
1st, 2nd
and 3rd
Generation
Women
1
o
g
111
1 o
1
c
1
E
1
1
•g
"a
'o
J
1
a
1
i
*3rd Gener.
(NB NP)
Women
with
1st Gener.
(FB FP)
Men
I^
■*
■*.
*3rd Gener.
(NB NP)
Women
with
2nd Gener.
(NB FP)
Men
§8
00
*3rd Gener.
(NB NP)
Women
with
*3rd Gener.
(NB NP)
Men
tH
2nd Gener.
(NB FP)
Women
with
*3rd Gener.
(NB NP)
Men
5
o
2nd Gener.
(NB FP)
Women
with
1st Gener.
(FB FP)
Men
i
oo
eo'
2nd Gener.
(NB FP)
Women
with
2nd Gener.
(NB FP)
Men
t^
CO
CO
1st Gener.
(FB FP)
Women
with
*3rd Gener.
(NB NP)
Men
3
o
1st Gener.
(FB FP)
Women
with
2nd Gener.
(NB FP)
Men
oo
o
OS
1st Gener.
(FB FP)
Women
with
1st Gener.
(FB FP)
Men
o
I-
Ist, 2nd
and 3rd
Generation
Women
with
1st, 2nd
and 3rd
Generation
Men
o
1
1 = 1
ill
3 ^
I
i.
.1
J
)
1
a
1
34 INTERMARRIAGE IN NEW YORK CITY [i86
occurred between second generation women and second
generation men as between second generation wom£n and
first generation men (26.3% and 13.8% respectively.)^
That this disparity in the proportions of intermarriage
is not due to a disparity in the ratios of marriageable persons
in the first and second generation, is evident, when it is
found that the proportions of marriageable men of the first
generation to marriageable women of the first generation
(1. 29:1) is almost the same as the proportion of marriage-
able men of the first generation to marriageable women of
the second generation (1. 22:1) and vice versa, (.77:1 and
.82:1).* The powerful forces thus at work are undoubtedly
the expression of sympathy and conform to the law that
"the degree of sympathy decreases as the generality of re-
semblance increases."''
But while the influences of cohesion undoubtedly make
themselves felt within the generation groups in an unmis-
takeable fashion, the forces of disruption are relentlessly
undermining the solidarity of the immigrant communities.
It comes somewhat as a surprise that out of every 100 mar-
riages in New York City as many as 14 are intermarriages
(13.59).«
One would expect that with the great massing of for-
eign-born in separate communities and the consequent
accentuation of group relationships, the ratio would be
much less.
II. INCREASE IN PROPORTION OF INTERMARRIAGE IN SECOND
GENERATION
But this figure gives no hint of the wide gap between
the intermarriage ratios of the first and of the second gen-
erations. Whereas among persons of the first generation
3 See Table II, p. 33
4 See Statistical Appendix, Table XVI, p. 211.
^ F. H. Giddings, Inductive Sociology, p. 108.
6 See Table III, p. 35
i87]
RESULTS
35
who marry, about 11 per 100 seek mates outside of their own
group, (10.39% for men and 10.10% for women) among those
of the second generation the proportion jumps to about 32
per 100 (32.40% for the men and 30.12% for the women.)
In other words, there is an increase of approximately 300%,
(311.8% for men and 298.2% for women. )^ The slight
difference between the men and the women might perhaps
adequately be accounted for by the relatively greater mo-
bility and aggressiveness of the men, and the greater con-
servatism of the women. But the striking increase for both,
in the second generation calls for a more detailed explana-
tion.
TABLE III
PROPORTION OF INTERMARRIAGE ACCORDING TO SEX AND GENERATION
(1908-1912)
♦Explanatory Note: See Table I,
p. 33.
Men
Women
Total
1st
Gener.
(FB FP)
2nd
Gener.
(NB FP)
*3rd
Gener.
(NB NP)
Total
1st
Gener.
(FB FP)
2nd
Gener.
(NB FP)
*3rd
Gener.
(NB NP)
Per cent, of intermarriage
13.59
10.39
32.40
5.87
13.59
10.10
.30.12
5.35
Number of marriages
79704
64577
12184
2943
79704
61823
14611
3270
Number of intermarriages
10835
6714
3948
173
10835
6249
4411
175
7 See Table III, p. 35.
If these proportions of intermarriage are applied to the total num-
ber of married persons (15 yrs. of age and over) in New York City
in 1910, (C/. S. Census Abstract. With Supplement for New York, p.
604, Table 16) the following figures are obtained :
a. Number of married foreign-born white males (first generation)
— 575,460; number of males who intermarried (11%) — 63,190;
b. No. of married foreign-born white females (first generation) —
521,855; number of females who intermarried (10%) — 52,185;
I
36 INTERMARRIAGE IN NEW YORK CITY [i88
III. HYPOTHESIS I. DISPARITY IN SEX RATIOS AMONG
MARRIAGEABLE PERSONS
What, then are the possible hypotheses by which this
basically important fact may be explained and which one
of the hypotheses is most probable? It might be urged,
first, particularly in reference to the men, that not having
enough women of their own group in the second generation,
they are compelled to seek wives among other groups. In
other words the disparity in the proportions of marriageable
Or approximately 115,375 foreign^horn white persons {first genera-
tion) who intermarried.
c. Number of married native white males of foreign or mixed
parentage (second generation) — 185,301 ; number of males who inter-
married (33%)— 61,769;
d. Number of married native white females of foreign or mixed
parentage (second generation) — ^216,223; number of females who in-
termarried (31%)— 67,029;
Or approximately 128,798 native white persons of foreign or mixed
parentage {second generation) who intermarried.
The total number of persons (first and second generations) who
intermarried was approximately 244,173.
Treating the figures for the United States in a similar way (the
intermarriage ratios for N. Y. City being assumed to be the minimum
ratios) the results are:
a. Number of married foreign-born white males (first generation)
—4,432,298; number of males who intermarried (11%)— 487,552;
b. Number of married foreign-born white females (first genera-
tion) — 3,624,215; number of females who intermarried (10%) — 362,421;
Or approximately 849,973 foreign-horn white persons {first genera-
tion) who intermarried.
c. Number of married native white males of foreign or mixed
parentage (second generation) — ^2,677,885; number of males who inter-
married (33%)— 883,702.
d. Number of married native white females of foreign or mixed
parentage (second generation) — 3,008,927; number of females who
intermarried (31 %)— 932,767 ;
Or approximately 1,816,469 native white persons of foreign or
mixed parentage {second generation) who intermarried.
The total number of persons (first and second generations) then,
who intermarried was approximately 2,666,442. {U. S. Census, Vol. I,
p. 518, Table 14.)
189] RESULTS 37
persons might account for the increased proportion of inter-
marriage. This is hardly tenable in the light of facts.
While there is a preponderance of marriageable men over
marriageable women in the first generation, the discrepancy-
very largely disappears in the second generation, which
shows the normal, approximately equal, distribution of the
sexes.® The marriageable sex ratio factor, then, might explain
intermarriage among men of the first generation, but must
be ruled out as an explanation for the second generation.
In cases of women it would seem inapplicable even for the
first generation. For, with a preponderance of men over
women, there would be no reason for women to leave their
group in search of husbands, if the factor of sex ratio were
the only one operating to determine choice.^
8 Since figures of the proportion of marriageable persons for each
nationality separately are not obtainable at present, it must suffice to
establish the fact of the general preponderance in the first generation
of marriageable men over women and the definite approach to an
equality of sex ratios among the marriageable in the second generation.
This is clearly brought out by Tables XIV-XVII, Statistical Appendix,
pp. 210-212.
» There appear to be exceptions to this, where, in spite of the pre-
ponderance of marriageable men over women, the proportion of inter-
marriage among the women is higher. This would seem to be the case
for the Austrian Poles, Slovaks, Irish, Bohemians, Finns, French,
Norwegians and the Swedes. (See Statistical Appendix, Table V.)
If it were solely and exclusively the factor of the marriageable sex
ratio that was operating in the first generation to determine choice,
then in those groups where there is a preponderance of men over
women, there ought to be no intermarriage whatsoever on the part of
the women. The fact, however, that they do intermarry at all, indi-
cates either that other forces are at work, or that the presence of a
surplus of men of other nationalities in search of wives (in addition
to the men of their own nationality) acts as an indirect compulsion or
attraction to the women to leave their own groups.
In the cases of those groups where the women not only intermarry
but intermarry more frequently than the men, in spite of the pre-
ponderance of men over women, the explanation may be that a certain
percentage of the eligible men do not marry at all, either because they
are not in a position economically or because they prefer not to inter-
38 INTERMARRIAGE IN NEW YORK CITY [190
III. HYPOTHESIS 2. RISE IN ECONOMIC STATUS
As it is, possibly another influence might urge men and
women of the second generation to intermarry more fre-
quently than men and women of the first generation. The
argument may run somewhat as follows: With higher
economic status generally goes greater mobility. With
greater mobility comes a wider circle of contacts, and in-
evitably a wider field of choice. Now, since persons of
the second generation are generally to be found in the
higher economic classes, owing to their better acquaintance
with the economic life of the country, they would thus be
freed from the shackles of the lower economic existence
and be permitted to move about, with greater probability
of selecting a mate from among the people of other social
groups with whom they come into contact.
If, in addition, it be kept in mind that the economic
ability to marry is probably higher in the second genera-
tion than in the first, a reasonable explanation might be
found for the unusual increase in the ratio of intermar-
riage.
But, it may be pointed out in reply, that a priori, this
hypothesis also, appears rather improbable. In the first
place, while it is true that lower income might act as a re-
tarding cause of marriage, it does not actually seem to do
so in the lower economic classes. On the other hand, with
increase of income, other subtle social causes would seem
to operate to reduce the frequency of marriage. Whatever
marry and thus do not marry at all. This would tend to leave free
an equal proportion of women. These again would be absorbed into
the groups where the proportion of intermarrying men is higher than
the proportion of intermarrying women. But since it is quite probable
that even in the first generation other factors, besides that of the
sex ratio among the marriageable are operative, these explanations are
undoubtedly incomplete.
In any event, the proof or disproof of these conjectures, must wait
upon the gathering of more complete data, among other things the dis-
tribution of the specific immigrant groups according to sex and marital
condition.
igi] RESULTS 39
decrease in marriages may occur in the first generation, is
likely to be offset by a corresponding decrease in the second
generation.
Such reasoning as this, however, is hardly sufficient to
refute the proposed explanation. If it could be shown from
actual records of intermarriages, that among intermarry-
ing persons of the second generation there is a larger pro-
portion of individuals who belong to the higher economic
classes, than there is among intermarrying persons of the
first generation, it could be fairly asserted that increased
income does bring about an increased proportion of inter-
marriage.
Applying this test, it appears from a comparative study
of the occupations of intermarrying persons of the first and
second generations that, while there is an increase in the
proportion of individuals of the second generation within
the higher economic groups (and a corresponding decrease
in the lower groups) the increase is hardly large enough
to account for the jump in the ratio of intermarriage.^^
10 This is brought out in Table XII, p. 65, by a broad grouping of
occupations of intermarrying persons into :
(a) Highest group (comprising persons in professional service)
\st generation: 9.4% for men; 11.3% for women; 2nd generation:
9.4% for men; 9.3% for women.
(b) Middle group (comprising persons in commerce and trade, and
manufacturing and mechanical pursuits) \st generation: 54.2% for
men, 34.1% for women; 2nd generation: 63.0% for men, 66.4% for
women.
(c) Lower group (comprising persons in personal and domestic
service and the lower grades of public service) \st generation: 22.8%
for men, 52.7% for women ; 2nd generation : 8.8% for men, 19.4% for
women.
(d) Low group (comprising persons in agriculture and transporta-
tion and navigation) \st generation: 4.9% for men, 0% for women;
2nd generation : 2.5% for men,' 0% for women.
(e) Lowest group (comprising unskilled workers) 1st generation:
8.7% for men, 1.9% for women; 2nd generation: 16.3% for men,
4.9% for women.
For similar results see also Table XIII, giving comparative pro-
portions of intermarriage for 5932 men (3400 of the 1st generation and
40 INTERMARRIAGE IN NEW YORK CITY [192
(The average increase, it will be remembered, is about
300% ; but the full range of increase in the ratios of inter-
marriage is for men, from 103% to 1446.1%; for women,
from 112.9% to 1294.1%. )."
It should be noted, however, that the economic factor
seems to be more effectively at work among women than
among men. The freer and more wide-spread participation
of women of the second generation in the commercial and
industrial life of the country doubtless creates a greater con-
trast between them and women of the first generation, than
is to be found in this respect among the men, who are not
so restricted in their economic activities. As the sphere of
women in the economic world widens, this factor will grow
increasingly stronger, particularly as sex propinquity in
modern industry seems definitely to affect matings.^^
2532 of the 2nd generation,) classified according to occupation groups.
The marked decrease for the second generation in the personal and
domestic service group is due undoubtedly to the fact that these oc-
cupations are less frequently entered by "Americans" of the 2nd gen-
eration, while the unexpected increase in the unskilled groups indicates
no doubt the prevalent lack of vocational training among young
persons of the second generation, thus compelling many to enter "blind
alley" occupations of which there is an abundance in a great city
like New York. For a comparative study of occupations of the first
and second generations of immigrants in the United States, tending to
bear out this view see Reports of the Immigration Commission of
1911, Vol. 28, particularly pp. 5-105.
Note: No comprehensive statistics have thus far been compiled on
the distribution of occupation groups according to incomes. The
classification used in Tables XII and XIII, however, is in substantial
agreement with the facts gathered by Frank H. Streightoff, in Chap.
VI of "The Distribution of Incomes in the United States," Columbia
University Studies in History, Economics and Public Law, Vol. 52, 1912.
See especially Tables XXIV-XXXVI, pp. 111-139.
11 See Statistical Appendix, Table V, opp. p. 100.
^2 For a study of "Occupational Propinquity as a Factor in Mar-
riage Selection" see article by Donald M. Marvin, in Quarterly Pub-
lications of the American Statistical Association, Vol. XVI, Sept., 1918,
pp. 138-150.
193]
RESULTS
41
III. HYPOTHESIS 3. WEAKENING OF GROUP SOLIDARITY
Now if neither disparity in the ratio of marriageable
persons nor rise in economic status is an adequate explana-
tion of the unusual increase in the proportion of inter-
marriage in the second generation, the only hypothesis left
is to ascribe it to the weakening or destruction of the atti-
tude of group solidarity. Once the subtle and numberless
bonds that tie the individual to his traditional group are
snapped, he is set adrift in a vast sea upon which float
countless similar "kin-wrecked" folk. Choice of mates is
then determined largely, if not wholly, by two factors: pro-
pinquity and physical attraction. The same forces that
strengthen or weaken immigrant community life are the
forces that fortify or undermine this attitude of attachment
to the group. The most important of these are :
Forces Tending to Strengthen Forces Tending to Undermine
to
Immigrant Community Life.
1. Geographic massing of im-
migrant population.
2. Stimulus by intensely na-
tionalistic leaders, aided by crises
in the fortunes of either the group
in America or of the parent-group
in the home-land.
3. Presence of numerous type
of communal organizations min-
istering to the economic, educa-
tionial and moral needs of the im-
migrants.
4. Personal affiliation with
communal enterprises.
5. Transmission through sys-
tematic education of the cultural
heritage of the group to the grow-
ing youth.
6. Conscious attempts by the
thinkers of the group to formu-
late a theory of group-adjustment
to American life.
to
Immigrant Community Life.
1. Dispersion of immigrant
population.
2. Absence of intensely nation-
alistic leaders and normal condi-
tion in home-land.
3. Paucity or absence of com-
munal organizations.
4. Lack of personal affiliation
with communal enterprises.
5. Indifference and neglect on
the part of the older generation in
regard to transmission of cul-
tural heritage to the younger gen-
eration.
6. Lack of critical thought with-
in the group upon future relations
to the new environment.
42 INTERMARRIAGE IN NEW YORK CITY [194
But after reflecting upon the nature of these forces and
their influence upon the "second generation" the well-in-
formed student of immigrant community life might point
out that it is hardly accurate to speak of them as under-
mining or fortifying the attitude of group loyalty. For, in
reality the "second generation" have no group attitude or
loyalty that can be undermined or fortified. The whole trend
of immigrant communal life in America has rather been to
prevent the formation of any attitude of group attachment
on the part of the younger generation. This criticism is not
wholly beside the point, especially when it is remembered
that the common characteristics of the "diluted" second
generation are reputed to be on the one hand, a lack of
knowledge and appreciation of the cultural heritage of their
group and on the other hand, a lack of affiliation with spe-
cifically communal undertakings. Nor have most of the
immigrant groups devised adequate educational methods to
impart an understanding of their cultural background to
their children. ^^ In the main, however, the inevitable con-
clusion would seem to be that the increased proportion of
intermarriage in the second generation must be attributed
almost wholly to the weakening of the sentiment of group
solidarity.
The relative efficacy, then, of the three factors in bring-
ing about intermarriage may be summarized as follows:
In the first generation the factor of disparity in the sex ratios
among marriageable persons is strongest, the economic factor
next (particularly for women) and the group consciousness
factor third. In the second generation the order is reversed,
the factor of group consciousness or rather the lack of it,
1* Even in such a highly self-conscious group as the Jews, religious
and cultural education of the youth is in a relatively backward state.
Of the 275,000 Jewish school children in N. Y. City in 1917, the total
number receiving some form of Jewish education was 65,400. This is
less than 24% of the estimated number of Jewish children of ele-
mentary school age. See A. M. Dushkin, Jewish Education in N. Y,
City, Part II, Ch. 1, The Extent of Jewish Education in N. Y. City,
pp. 156-157.
195] RESULTS 43
being most prominent, the economic factor being second, and
the sex ratio factor playing the smallest role.
IV. GROUPING OF NATIONALITIES ACCORDING TO RATIO OF
INTERMARRIAGE
The facts presented thus far have had reference mainly
to the relation between intermarriage and generation, ir-
respective of national descent. 'Equally characteristic re-
sults are obtained when the various nationalities are
grouped according to the magnitude of their ratios of inter-
marriage. Beginning in Class I with nationalities that inter-
marry least frequently and ending in Class V with those
that fuse most readily, the array appears as follows:^*
Table IVa
Classification of Nationalities according to Proportion of
Intermarriag'e. (Men and Women of the list,
2nd and 3rd generations)*
(1908-1912)
Class I
(0 to 4.99 intermarriages per 100 marriages)
Nationality No. of Intermarriages
per 100 Marriages
Roumania (Jew) 45
British West Indies (Colored) 48
Russia (Jew) 62
Turkey (Jew) 80
Colored (combined groups) 93
Austria (Jew) 99
United States (colored) 1.08
Jewish (combined groups) 1.17
Dutch West Indies (Colored) 1.44
Hungary (Jew) 2.24
England (Jew) 3.47
Holland (Jew) 4.00
United States (Jew) 4.26
Syria 4.63
^* For the number of cases upon which the computation of the
proportions of intermarriage is based, see Statistical Appendix, Table
V. opp. p. 100.
♦The following groups, represented by less than 50 marriage cer-
44 INTERMARRIAGE IN NEW YORK CITY [196
Class II
(5 to 9.99 intermarriages per 100 marriages)
Nationality No. of Intermarriages
per 100 Marriages
Germany (Jew) 5.16
Italy (not located) 5.58
Italy (South) 5.83
France (Jew) 6.54
Italy (combined groups) 6.76
Hungary (Hungarian) 8.59
Armenia ■%... 9.63
Class III
(10 to 24.99 intermarriages per 100 marriages)
Nationality No. of Intermarriages
per 100 Marriages
Turkey 13.15
Austria (Polish) 13.56
Hungary (Slovak) 14.09
Italy (North) 16.73
Finland 16.82
Russia (Polish) 20.25
Ireland 21.59
Germany (not located) 21.68
Greece 22.14
Hungary (German) 24.41
Class IV
(25 to 49.99 intermarriages per 100 marriages)
Nationality No. of Intermarriages
per 100 Marriages
Austria (Bohemian) 25.15
Sweden 31.04
Spain 33.11
Germany (combined groups) ^ 33.34
Norway 39.14
British West Indies (English) 39.86
Denmark 47.42
France 49.55
tificates, have been omitted in this classification: Cuba (colored),
Canada (colored), Roumania, Austria (Italian), China, Switzerland
(Italian), Mexico (Spanish), Serbia.
197] RESULTS 45
Class V
(50 to 100 intermarriages per 100 marriages.)
Nationality No. of Intermarriages
per 100 Marriages
Porto Rico (Spanish) 50.76
Germany (North) 53.05
Germany (South) 55.98
Wales 59.44
Belgium 59.63
Austria (German) 59.71
Scotland 59.79
Holland 62.58
England 62.70
Switzerland (German) 66.32
Japan 72.41
Cuba ( Spanish) 73.73
Canada (French) 75.60
Canada (English) 79.85
Switzerland (French) 82.08
Portugal 88.23
Even a casual inspection of this table reveals at once
distinct groupings at either end of the scale. Jews and
Negroes are at the lowest point, while the Northern, North-
western and Central European peoples tend to gather near
the highest point. The Italians and the Irish, together with
the Poles (Russian and Austrian), the Slovaks, the Greeks
and the Finns, occupy the middle-ground. This distribu-
tion with slight modifications was found to hold for both
men and women, and for both the first and the second gen-
erations.^®
In an exhaustive treatment of the problems of amalga-
mation each one of the ethnic groups in the five classes
shown in Table IVa would be taken up for discussion sep-
arately. This is not feasible here because of the limita-
tions of cost and space.
The discussion which follows is therefore offered largely
for purposes of illustration of type facts and explanations.
15 See Statistical Appendix, Tables IVb-IVi, pp. 93-100.
46 INTERMARRIAGE IN NEW YORK CITY [198
The Jews and the Negroes are selected to represent the
low ratio groups, the Italians and the Irish the middle
ratio groups, while the Northern and N. W. European peo-
ples are made to serve as representatives of the high ratio
group. These ethnic stocks are chosen partly because they
are large and important constituents in the population of
the United States and partly because it is easier to frame
an explanation as to why their intermarriage ratio is what
it is, owing to the general knowledge we possess of the life
of these groups and their attitude towards amalgamation.
V. INTERMARRIAGE BETWEEN JEWS AND NON-JEWS
The explanation for the small proportion of intermar-
riage among the Jews is not far to seek.^^ From the earliest
period in their history the leaders of the people, feeling
almost instinctively the danger of extinction of a minority
group, have steadfastly set their faces against fusion with
non-Jews. ^^ The strict prohibition of Ezra and Nehemiah
(about 400 B. C.) was supplemented on the Christian side
by the various edicts of the Church, beginning with that
enacted by the Eastern Church at the Council of Chalcedon
^6 For an excellent discussion of intermarriage among the Jews
both historically and statistically treated, see Arthur Ruppin, The Jews
of Today, Ch. X, Intermarriage, and Maurice Fishberg, The Jews —
A Study of Race and Environment, Ch. VIII, Proselytism and Inter-
marriage Among Jews; Ch. IX, Mixed Marriages in Modern Times.
A readable account of the arguments against intermarriage from the
Jewish point of view is that of Dr. David De Sola Pool on "Inter-
marriage," The Hebrew Standard, Vol. LXXIII, No. 6, February 7,
1919.
1^ The prohibition against intermarriage is expressed in Deuter-
onomy, VII, 1-4, as follows: "When the Lord thy God shall bring
thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and shall cast out
many nations before thee . . thou shalt make no covenant with
them . . . neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy
daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter thou shalt
take unto thy son. For He will turn away thy son from following me
that they may serve other gods ; so will the anger of the Lord be kindled
against thee and He will destroy thee quickly."
199] RESULTS 47
in 388 A. D. and followed by those of the Councils of Or-
leans (A. D. 538), Toledo (A. D. 689) and Rome (A. D.
7AZy^ enjoining Christians from marrying Jews. It was
not until the latter part of the eighteenth and the opening
years of the nineteenth centuries when religious and social
ostracism of the Jews began to slacken in its rigor, that
intermarriage became a pronounced factor. All careful
students of the problem^^ agree that with the emancipation
has come an increasing tendency to amalgamate with the
peoples among whom the Jews happened to live. This
holds especially of the Western European countries. Rup-
pin, reviewing all available facts bearing upon intermar-
riage of Jews and Christians, groups the various countries
into four classes :
1 — Those where mixed marriages are less than 2%, as
in Galicia, Bukovina, Rumania and the Jewish immigrant
areas of England, France and the United States.
2 — Those where the proportion of mixed marriages
ranges from 2% to 10%, namely, Catholic Germany,* Hun-
gary (excluding Budapest) and Bohemia.
3 — Those where intermarriage goes on to the extent of
from 10% to 30% of Jewish marriages, as in Protestant
Germany,* Holland, Austria (Vienna and Budapest).
18 B. Feldman, Year Book of the Central Conference of American
Rabbis, 1910, pp. 217-307. "Intermarriage Historically Considered."
1^ Among them particularly Ruppin, Zollschan and Fishberg.
♦Figures of 1911 (three years before the Great War) present a
striking contrast when compared with figures for 1915 (one year after
the opening of the War.) Of 4449 Jewish men who married within
the German Empire in 1911, 635 or 14.2% married non- Jewish women.
The latter included 471 Protestants, 117 Roman Catholics and 47 of
other denominations. Of 4267 Jewish women who married in the same
year, 453 or 10.6% married non-Jewish men (302 Protestants, HI
Roman Catholics and 40 of other denominations.)
The 1915 figures are as follows: Of 1842 Jewish men, 744 or 40.3%
married non-Jewish women (542 Protestants, 159 Roman Catholics and
43 of other denominations.) Of 1497 Jewish women, 399 or 26.6%
married non- Jewish men (287 Protestants, 82 Roman Catholics and 30
of other denominations.)
48 INTERMARRIAGE IN NEW YORK CITY [200
A — Those where one-third of Jewish marriages are mixed
marriages (Denmark, Australia, Italy and the older Jewish
communities in England and France and the United States).
The general and inescapable conclusion at which Ruppin
arrives is: "The more Jews and Christians mix with one
another in economic and social life, the more likely is it that
they will intermarry with one another^° . . . The in-
creasing spread of intermarriage is indeed not likely to be
hindered by any race theories,^^ so long as the social dif-
ferences between Christians and Jews are wiped out and
the path to intermarriage made smooth. "^^ In the face of
this rapid process of disintegration it is not surprising that
strong counter-currents against complete amalgamation
should have been created within the Jewish group as such.
Apart from the argument of inexpediency or impracticability
of mixed marriages^^ (growing out of the incompatibility
of traditional and cultural backgrounds in the family life)
the more fundamental objection raised by many modern
spokesmen of the Jewish people is that assimilation is a
This means an increase in the proportion of intermarriage of 283.8%
for the men and of 250.9% for the women. What the causes of this
unusual increase have been is difficult to conjecture. (For tables from
which the figures above have been compiled see Statistisches Jahrbuch
fur das Deutsche Reich, 1913, p. 23, Table 5, and 1918, p. 7, Table 5.)
20 Ruppin, op. cit., p. 170 and p. 171.
21 Such as Diihring's notion that Jewish blood destroys the pure
Aryan race and that there is a physiological antipathy between the
Semite and the Aryan. Eugene Diihring, Die Judenfrage als Frage der
Rassenschddlichkeit. Also Eduard von Hartmann, Das Judenthum in
Gegenwart and Zukunft, pp. 6-8.
It is noteworthy that among the Jewish people arguments against
intermarriage rarely, if ever, are of the biological variety. With them
the problem has been and is still primarily one of the integrity of
Jewish home life, and therefore of the social solidarity of the Jewish
people.
22 Ruppin, op. cit. p. 170 and p. 171.
23 Fishberg's conclusion is : "Mixed marriages are thus three to
four times more likely to be dissolved than pure marriages." Op. cit.
p. 217.
20i] RESULTS 49
constant menace to the integrity of the group. Only a
strong nationalist movement looking ultimately to the es-
tablishment of a home-land in Palestine can save them from
final disappearance. The growing Zionist movement which
embodies this aspiration, draws its vigor as much from this
deep-seated dread of extinction as it does from the romantic
idealism of the re-birth of a dead nationality.^*
For New York City, where one-half of the total Jew-
ish population of the United States is concentrated, the
intermarriage ratio, according to the data gathered for this
study, is less than 2% (1.17). It varies, however, with the
particular country of origin and consequently the degree
of assimilation of the section of Jewry considered. Thus,^^
while among Rumanian Jews the proportion is .45% and
among Russian Jews .62%, it rises to 4.26% among native
born Jews of native parents; to 5.16% among German Jews
and to 6.54% among French Jews. The English Jews, with
3.47% seem to hold the middle ground. In the smaller
cities and rural districts the extent of intermarriage is far
greater, although exact figures are not available.^^
VI. MISCEGENATION AMONG NEGROES
Just as difference of religion explains adequately the low
proportion of intermarriage betweens Jews and non-Jews,
so difference of color accounts for the small proportion of
fusion between negro and white. There can be no doubt
that the amalgamation of the two races, especially in the
2* The Balfour Declaration of November 2nd, 1917, favoring the
establishment of a Jewish home-land in Palestine, has given the modern
Zionist movement a concrete basis such as it has not had since its rise
in the latter part of the 19th century.
25 See Table IVa, p. 43.
28Fishberg quotes the estimate of the director of circuit preaching
of the Central Conference of American Rabbis, as 5% in the northern
parts of the United States and 20% to 50%, most probably 33% in
the South. Fishberg, op. cit., pp. 203-204.
k
50 INTERMARRIAGE IN NEW YORK CITY [202
southern states, is going on, and that there is already a
considerable mulatto population.^^ In the North, however,
in spite of the absence of laws against miscegenation, the
proportion seems to be negligible and perhaps also on the
decline.^^ In New York City, for a period of five years
(1908-1912) the ratio was 1.08%.
For colored men it was 1.78%, for colored women, .44%.
In other words, the men intermarry about four times as
frequently as the women.^® As the question stands now,
it is, in the opinion of an acknowledged negro leader, "of
little practical importance. For, in practice, the matter
works itself out; the average white person does not marry
a negro, and the average negro, despite his theory, himself
marries one of his race, and frowns darkly on his fellows
unless they do likewise. In those very circles of negroes
who have a large infusion of white blood, where the free-
dom of marriage is most strenuously advocated, white wives
have always been treated with a disdain bordering on insult,
2'' F. Boas. The Mind of Primitive Man, Ch. X, Race Problems in
the United States, pp. 275-276.
28 Ray Stannard Baker, Following the Color Line, p. 172 : "Altho
the Negro population of Boston has been steadily increasing, the
number of marriages between the races, which remained about sta-
tionary from 1875 to 1890, has since 190O been rapidly decreasing.
Here are the exact figures as given by the Registry Department :
Racial Intermarriages in Boston
Year
Groom G)lored
Groom White
Total Mixed
Bride White
Bride Colored
Marriages
1900
32
3
35
1901
30
1
31
1902
25
4
29
1903
27
2
29
1904
27
1
28
1905
17
2
19
For further evidence tending to show the decline in racial inter-
marriages, see Frederick L. Hoffman, Race Traits and Tendencies of
the American Negro, pp. 198-200.
29 See Statistical Appendix, Table V, opp. p. 100.
203] RESULTS 51
and white husbands never received on any terms of social
recognition."^®
VII. AMALGAMATION AMONG NORTHERN AND NORTHWESTERN
EUROPEAN PEOPLES
It would be only reasonable to expect that among
groups where barriers of religion and color are not marked,
fusion would proceed rather rapidly. This expectation ap-
pears to be borne out by the fact that the highest propor-
tion of intermarriage is found among the Northern, North-
western and some of the Central European nationalities.^^
Here, except for the possible prejudice between Protestant
and Catholic, no serious obstacles exist in the way of amal-
gamation.
Besides, the longer period of residence in the United
States of these older immigrant groups has undoubtedly
further predisposed them to the assimilating process.
But upon a closer examination of the figures, another
and perhaps simpler explanation of the high proportion of
intermarriage suggests itself.
Arranging the various nationalities in language groups,
or what are broadly speaking cultural groups,^^ the Teu-
tonic peoples were found to fuse most with Teutonic groups,
sow. E. B. Du Bois, The Philadelphia Negro, A Social Study,
Publications of the University of Pennsylvania Series in Political
Economy and Public Law, No. 14, p. 359.
31 See Table IVa, pp. 43-45.
82 For the scheme of classification of language groups used, see
article in National Geographic Magazine, Dec, 1918, by Edwin H.
Grosvenor, "The Races of Europe." The number of nationalities rep-
resented in the various language groups in this study was as follows:
Teutonic, 12; Slavic, 6; Greco-Latin, 13; Celtic, 2; Finno-Ugrian, 2;
Syro-Arabic, 2; Iranian, 2; Turkish, 1. There are also included two
racial groups, black (Negro) and yellow, the latter represented by 2
groups, the Chinese and Japanese, while the former were represented
by British West Indian, Canadian, Cuban and Dutch West Indian
negroes.
52 INTERMARRIAGE IN NEW YORK CITY [204
apparently because there is a considerable assortment of
Teutonic language groups present in the population. In
other words, while the Northern and Northwestern European
peoples show a high ratio of intermarriage, this occurs predom-
inantly within the same language or cultural group. In
practically every case where a Teutonic nationality inter-
married with other groups, almost one-half of the number
of nationalities intermarried with, was found to fall within
the Teutonic group. This was clearly not so in the other
language groups, apparently because there is a much
smaller representation of similar language classes present
in the population. Three general factors, then, might be
cited in explanation of the relatively high degree of amal-
gamation of the Northern and Northwestern European im-
migrant : lack of racial and religious barriers, comparatively
long period of settlement in the United States, and the
presence of a fairly numerous variety of similar language
or cultural groups in the population. Exactly what share
is contributed to the production of the amalgamating pro-
cess by each of these factors, is extremely difficult to cal-
culate and because of incomplete data about the immigrant
population hardly possible.
VIII. FUSION AMONG IRISH AND ITALIANS
With some modifications, the explanation for the Teu-
tonic groups would hold for the Italians and the Irish, who
occupy the middle position in the series. A shorter period
of residence in America, together with a constant shifting,
characteristic of much of the migratory Italian popula-
tion, as also a somewhat lower social prestige among the
immigrant groups, would go far to explain the low posi-
tion of the Italians in the scale ; while strong religious pref-
erences among the Irish may have tended to keep their
ratio of intermarriage lower than their period of residence
and their traditional sociability would lead one to expect.
205] RESULTS 53
IX. INCREASE OF PROPORTION OF INTERMARRIAGE OF SECOND
GENERATION OVER FIRST
Closely connected with the characteristic groupings of
the nationalities according to ratio of intermarriage, are
the further facts of the increase of proportion of inter-
marriage of the second generation over the first. The gen-
eral statement is easily borne out that the lower the ratio
of intermarriage in the first generation, the greater the
ratio in the second and therefore the greater the relative
increase. ^^ If the nationalities are grouped according to
proportions of increase, the Jews, who have the lowest ratio
for the first generation are found in the higher increase
groups, while the Northern, Northwestern and some of the
Central European peoples fall into the lower increase
groups. This holds also for the Italians and for the Irish.
For the Jews as a combined group, the ratio for the
first generation is .64%, for the second generation, 4.51%
— an increase of a little over 700% (704.6%). In other
words, in the second generation, Jews intermarry about
seven times as frequently as in the first. It must, however,
be added that while the proportional increase is very great,
the absolute number of intermarriages is comparatively in-
significant.^* Among Jewish men the increase is far greater
than among Jewish women. ^^ The country of origin too,
indicating as it does, the stage of assimilation and the length
of residence in the United States, produces differences in
the proportion of intermarriage and in the increases. Thus,
among Russian Jews, comparatively recent arrivals, the
ratios are : .36% for the first generation (men, .26% ;
women, .47%) ; 3.40% for the second generation (men,
3.76%; women, 3.14)%. The average increase here is
944.4%. Among the German Jews, however, an older and
33 See Statistical Appendix, Table VII, p. 208.
34 See Statistical Appendix, Table V, opp. p. 100.
35 Men: 1st generation, .50%; 2nd generation, 5.67% — increase of
1134%. Women: 1st generation, .78%; 2nd generation, 3.S8%~in-
crease of 458.9%.
54 INTERMARRIAGE IN NEW YORK CITY [206
more assimilated section of Jewry, the amalgamating pro-
cess has already reached a higher level and therefore the
break between the first and the second generation is much
less marked. The figures here show that in the first gen-
eration the number of mixed marriages per 100 marriages
is 3.74 (men, 8.85 ; women, 2.96). The increase of the second
generation over the first, then, amounts to only 160.9% as
compared with 944.4% among the Russian Jews.
For the Germans, Dutch, English, Canadians (English
and French), Swiss, Welsh, Scotch, Danes, Norwegians,
Swedes, Bohemians, Poles (Austrian and Russian), with
a higher proportion of intermarriage, the percent of increase
is between 100% and 300%.
For the Irish as a group, it is somewhat over 200%
(233.7%), the men showing a higher increase than the
women^® because the proportion of intermarriage among
them in the first generation is lower than among the women.
The Italians, standing midway between the Irish and the
Jews, show increases of 300% to 700%,^^ the average in-
crease for the group as a whole being 330.6%.
One reason why in the groups showing high proportions
of intermarriage, the percentage of increase is lower than
that for the low-proportioned groups, is undoubtedly the
range within which the increase can take place. Where
the ratio of intermarriage is high to begin with {i. e., in the
first generation) the range is already narrowed and the
possible proportionate increase limited. Where the initial
ratio of intermarriage is low, there is a much wider interval
between it and the maximum point and therefore a
wider range for any possible increase. The mere fact,
however, of the wider range does not of itself produce the
larger increase. It only makes increase possible, should
forces be at work tending to create the increase. There
36 Men: 1st generation, 9.61%; 2nd generation, 29.85%; increase
of 310.6%. Women: 1st generation, 18.66%; 2nd generation, 38.31%;
increase of 205.3%.
^"^ See Statistical Appendix, Table V, opp. p. 100.
207] RESULTS 55
is thus an added significance in the striking rise in propor-
tion of intermarriage in such groups as the Jews and the
Italians. The forces of disruption among them are relatively-
more powerful than among the other groups where these
forces have already accomplished much of their* work.
The suddenness and magnitude of the break between first
and second generations are greater, and the corresponding
strain upon group solidarity, with its accompaniment of a
heightened group consciousness, more intense. If, in ad-
dition, it be remembered that the intermarriage index is
only a mimmum index of group disintegration, the full mean-
ing of the large increase becomes vividly clear.
X. NUMBER OF NATIONALITIES INTERMARRIED WITH IN
SECOND GENERATION
The process of fusion characterized thus far, naturally
implies amalgamation with numerous distinct national
groups. With a large increase in the proportion of inter-
marriage, such as is the distinguishing feature of the second
generation, the simple deduction might be made that the
number of nationalities with which each group intermar-
ries in the second generation, would also correspondingly
increase. This, however, is far from being the case. On the
contrary, there is a definite reduction in the number of
nationalities intermarried with. A curious process of nar-
rowing down seems to take place. Whereas in the first
generation the average number of distinct nationalities with
which persons of a group intermarry is 12 (both for the men
and for the women) this is cut in half for the second gen-
eration (6 for both men and women) as shown by the fol-
lowing table :
56
INTERMARRIAGE IN NEW YORK CITY
[208
♦TABLE VIII
NTJMBEE OP DISTINCT NATIONALITIES WITH WHICH PERSONS OF VARIOUS IMMIGRANT GROUPS INTERMARRIED
Nationalities
Intermarrying
No. of Distinct Nationalities
with which
Ist Gen. Men 2nd Gen. Men
Intermarried
No. of Distinct Nationalities
with which
1st Gen. Women 2nd Gen. Women
Intermarried
20
9
24
12
3
23
13
17
6
1
17
18
8
7
1
10
5
17
10
1
30
21
15
3
33
18
29
29
24
9
26
11
4
14
7
13
4
11
2
32
11
46
36
17
18
10
1
12
3
22
10
5
13
5
23
17
13
5
30
13
25
12
8
2
3
3
2
5
7
10
7
3
2
1
5
6
20
5
2
2
10
13
1
1. Armenia
2. Austria (Boh.)
3. Austria (Ger.)
4. Austria (Ital.)
5. Austria (Pol.)
6. Belgium
7. British W.I. (Colored)...
8. British W.I. (English)....
9. Canada (Col.)
10. Canada (Eng.)
11. Canada (Fr.)
12. China
13. Cuba (Col.)
14. Cuba (Span.)
15. Denmark
16. Dutch W. I. (Col.)
17. England
18. Finland
19. France
20. Germany (not located) —
21. Germany (North)
22. Germany (South)
23. Greece
24. Holland
25. Hungary (Ger.)
26. Hungary (Hung.)
27. Hungary (Slovak)
28. Ireland
29. Italy (not located)
30. Italy (North
31. Italy (South)
32. Japan
33. Mexico (Span.)
34. Norway
35. Porto Rico (Span.)
36. Portugal
37. Roumania
38. Russia (Pol.)
39. Serbia
40. Scotland
41. Spain
42. Sweden
43. Switzerland (Ger.)
44. Switzerland (Fr.>
45. Switzerland (Ital.)
46. Syria
47. Turkey
48. Wales
49. Austria (Jew)
50. England (Jew)
51. France (Jew)
52. Germany (Jew)
53. Holland (Jew)
54. Hungary (Jew)
55. Roumania (Jew)
56. Russia (Jew)
57. Turkey (Jew)
Average No. of Nation-
alities Intermarried with.
12
12
♦Tables IVb-IVi, V, VI, VII, wiU be found in Statistical Appendix, pp. 93 to 200. Only Tables I, II, III, IVa,
VIII, IX, X, XI, XII have been inserted into the body of the text for purposes of more convenient reference in
following the argument at various successive points.
209] RESULTS 57
XI. APPARENT CHOICE OF NATIONALITIES IN SECOND
GENERATION
If now the question be raised which nationalities it is
that are thus apparently selected or preferred in intermar-
riage, the inquiry reveals that it is primarily the Northern
and Northwestern European peoples. Of the thirteen
nationalities selected most often, nine are Northern and
Northwestern European groups. Whether or not this selec-
tion had the character of conscious choice is extremely dif-
ficult to determine.
The inclusion in the list of Germans, Irish, Italians and
Jews, suggests that since these peoples are the most nu-
merous in the population of New York City, it was perhaps
the presence in larger numbers of representatives of the
selected nationalities that mainly determined the frequency
of the choice.^^ If to these four groups be added the other
nationalities selected, the preferred groups together are
found to have been almost 60% of the total population of
the city.^® But it would be hazardous to try to apportion
an exact share of influence to this factor of population be-
cause no reliable data on the proportion of marriageable
persons of both sexes in these individual groups are avail-
able. Thus the important question as to whether this ap-
parent selection of a smaller number of nationalities with
which to intermarry is due to genuine, conscious preference
or is rather an enforced choice, must remain unanswered
for the present. However, it is not an unreasonable hy-
pothesis to state that in addition to the population factor,
the higher social prestige of the Anglo-Saxon groups, due
to longer residence and economic stability may also to a
certain extent, have been an attractive force determining
38 These four nationalities and their native born descendants con-
stituted 50.8% of the total population of N. Y. City in 1910 (2,422,418
out of 4,766,883).
3957.1% (2,722,547 out of 4,766,883). This excludes the Austrian
Poles for whom no separate figures are given.
58 INTERMARRIAGE IN NEW YORK CITY [210
choice. Whatever the full explanation, the fact remains
that persons of the second generation who intermarry,
marry into a narrower circle of national groups than those
of the first generation, that this circle is predominantly
North-European and that it is this group of nationalities
that is being diluted more than any other.
2Il]
RESULTS
59
:i
•2fe
03 3333333933333333333333333
333333333333333
33333333333«3a3<t
3 3 « 3 3
33333333333333333333333
33333333333
I IM (M »H ^ r-1 (M — H »-l rH
3 3 3 3
333333333333333333333333333333333
r>3 333333333333333333
3333333333333333333333
333333333333333
3333333333
^§
1
•-1
e«
.o-e
1
?;
"S"
^
V
1
1^
03 333333333333, 3
3 3 3 3 3 3
3 3 3 3 3
333333333333333
^3 33333333333333333333333333333*3a
o
CO CO oo o CO -^ •>*< cc cQ T-( Jh ^ o» OS oo oo t^ t« «o CO CO »o us ■»!< •* ■* eo eo c« c<i T-i ,^ ^^ _j i i i i
(M Cfl i-H .-H rH ,-1 T^ ^ ^ »-l ,-i r-l ^ '
I I I I I I I
3 3 3 3
3 3 3 3
3 3 3 3
3 3 3 3 3 3
3333333333
333333333
6o INTERMARRIAGE IN NEW YORK CITY [212
XII. OCCUPATION AND INTERMARRIAGE
Upon two Other problems do the facts recorded in the
marriage certificates throw some light. The question may
be asked: Under what economic and social conditions is
the amalgamation proceeding? Are these conditions, on
the whole, favorable or unfavorable? Closely related to
this is the second question : On what cultural levels do the
intermarriages take place? Is it the intellectuals that fuse
most often, or is it the untutored ? Or is it both, as is fre-
quently asserted from general observation; or do the facts
reveal the opposite state of affairs?
The answers cannot be Jbrought out by direct evidence,
except by the indirect testimony gathered from the occupa-
tions of the persons intermarrying. Considering persons
employed in professional service, in commerce, in manu-
facturing and in mechanical pursuits as belonging to the
higher economic classes,*^ it is found that over two-thirds
of the intermarriages among men (67.3%) and a little less
than 60% (59.2%) among women fall within these groups.
The economic plane, then, upon which the fusion is taking
place is rather high.
*o For a classification of occupations into economic groups, see
Table XII, p. 65, and note 10, p. 39.
*^ The total number of intermarriages upon which this table and
Tables XI and XII are based is only 3698, because out of the total
number of intermarriages studied (10,835) only 3698 marriage cer-
tificates recorded the occupation of both bride and groom. There
were 3400 additional records where the occupation of the groom alone
was given. These figures were utilized as supplementary data (See
Table XIII). Thus, there were 7098 marriage certificates out of
10,835 in which the occupation of both bride and groom, or of groom
alone was recorded, and Z7Z7 certificates in which the description of
the occupation was so indefinite that the item had to be omitted.
213]
RESULTS
6i
S
jo-om'ib^oxjo%
1 ^
1
00
CO
CO
OO
I :
P^in^nQ
CO
■«*<
^
t^
"
■<«H
o>
to
88&8TJJ'BUU3(>UJ | :
UOI^BStABJSJ
jo-o^'lB^oxjo% 1 :
5
aoi^B:)iodsn'GJX
o
a
sag'Biin3UU9')ai |
jo-on'[b;oxjo% 1 :
O
<
a.
s
o
(sapBiS
J8M0I) aoiAjag oijqnj
e
sagBiiiBtoJa^^ni
^
o
to
CO
CM
-*
l^
S
^"
CO
i
aoiAjag 1 ^
ot?s9rao(i jraosjaj |
c3
1
i
«5
■51<
-
^
s
i
CO
892Biireraa9^ui
JO -OM iB^ox p %
CO
5S
S5
<M
05
o
«3
OO
^i'
i
lo
Th
"
CO
■^
s
JO •o.Ni iB^ox JO %
iii
OO
o
CO
CO
<6
o
-*
S
F
1 "^
apBIX pUB 90J9U1UIOQ ""
i
S
lO
S
'
a>
.
§
i
00
z
o
s93BiirBuu9:jui | "^
CO
to
>o
ai
o
o
1 §
§8
s
S5
CO
=o
■*
■>*
05
S3
CO
o
i
;z;
IB^ox pasJO JO %
o
CD
CO
CO
CO
.o
t-
-
-
i
S93Biii'Bra
-ja^^ui JO -0^ iB^ox
-
CO
i
c^
S
§
s
1
1
o
1
1
1
1
-a
1 :
s •
1 ;
11
1
1
t
B
1
2
3
1
1
s
o
O
a
62 INTERMARRIAGE IN NEW YORK CITY [214
XIII. CULTURE LEVEL AND INTERMARRIAGE
Turning to the second question : if by "culture" is meant
something practically synonymous with "education" and
particularly education in the broad subjects of literature,
the arts and the natural and social sciences, then it is pos-
sible on the basis of occupation to classify the intermarry-
ing persons broadly according to "culture groups". The
highest "culture group" would then be represented by per-
sons in professional service, the lowest by those in unskilled
work. Persons in commerce and trade, manufacturing and
mechanical pursuits and personal and domestic service
would constitute the middle or mediocre "culture group".
Below this group (though here some exception might be
taken) would be those in the lower grades of public service,
agriculture, transportation and navigation. ^^ The as-
sumption underlying such a classification is that the lower
the income, the lower the "culture level", because the less
has been the opportunity to acquire a broad education. At
the same time, it must be clearly understood that lack of
"culture" in this sense does not, of course, imply lack of
native capacity. The two may, and often do, exist entirely
independently of each other.
Looked at in this light the striking fact emerges that
the large majority of intermarrying persons come from
neither the highest nor the lowest "culture groups". It is
rather on the level of the mediocre cultural plane that the
greatest amount of amalgamation is to be found. Of nearly
3,700 who intermarried, 9.5% were in professional service,
the highest "culture group", 12% were unskilled workers,
the lowest "culture group". Those in commerce and trade,
manufacturing and mechanical pursuits, and personal and
domestic service together made up 71.1% of the total num-
ber of intermarriages. In other words, almost three-fourths
of the mixed marriages were in the mediocre culture
groups. For the women this holds even more clearly. In
*2See Table XII, p. 65.
215] RESULTS 63
the highest group the proportion was 10.3%, in the lowest
3.2%, in the middle groups 86.5%.
It may be presumed that in the higher group it is a
high degree of cultural self-consciousness that prevents fu-
sion, in the lower group it is strong prejudices. In the mid-
dle groups where neither one nor the other is pronounced,
and where constant contact in daily work levels differences,
the amalgamation proceeds most easily and most rapidly.
64
INTERMARRIAGE IN NEW YORK CITY
216
55
i
i
Fnpisua
CO
s
CO
-
^
-
-*
S"
oo^bSbiab^
uot^BijjodsnBJj,
UJ
>
bJ
■J
(aiininoi^joH
Saipniom)
ain(nnoij3v
UJ
3
MiAjag onqrm
1
Z
aouuas
opsaraoQ
s
c3
1
00
s
r^
•<*<
tr^
1
00 '"
|5;
1
3
IBOioBqoapv
i
s
JfS
■<*i
t>.
eo
•*
^
§=
apBJX
25) aoiaunuoo
S
i
»o
•*
05
->*<
§
m 00
111 z
u
3
aotAjag
I«noi88ajoij
§
§8
g
c^
CO
«
^
■<1<
05
§ =
i
paBa3jo%
US
00
CO
CO
U5
C^
-
-
1
i
1
JO -oi^ iKjox
g
CO
e
i
%
g
s
§
S
s
ii
0.
a
1
J
1
-a
c
1
1
1
§
s
M
1
.J
1
1
i
i
1
1
i
1
J
1
1
1
3
1
I3A9T
1
J
1
1
217]
RESULTS
65
Q ceo— 5S'=^-C'*o^S
<a m <o '^
&5i
I
Oh [£i
O
=
xz
Ul Q
go
<
1°
O O
ii
83
0£
2-2
^ O
66 INTERMARRIAGE IN NEW YORK CITY [218
XIV. SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT FACTS
The significant facts found in the course of the analysis
can now be summarized as follows :
(1) The ratio of intermarriage for men and women of
all nationalities, as a group, is about 14, (13.59) out of every
100 marriages, (10,835 intermarriages out of 79,704 mar-
riages.)
(2) There is a strong tendency for intermarriages to
occur within identical generations.*^ The first generation
tends to intermarry with the first, the second generation
with the second.
(3) The proportion of intermarriage between persons
of different generations decreases as the interval between
the generations increases. Thus, intermarriages are more
frequent between men of the first generation and women of
the first generation, than between men of the first generation
and women of the second generation. This is true also of in-
termarriage between men of the second generation and women
of the second generation, as compared with intermarriages be-
tween men of the second generation and women of the first
generation.
(4) In the second generation, both men and women,
each considered as a group, irrespective of national descent,
intermarry approximately three times as often as men and
women of the first generation. In other words, the increase
in proportion of intermarriage of the second generation
over the first is about 300%.
(5) The ratio of intermarriage for women is slightly
lower than that for men.
(6) There are three main forces at work in each group
tending to produce amalgamation with other groups: pre-
ponderance of marriageable men over marriageable women,
rise in economic status, and diminution in the intensity of
the group consciousness or in the attitude of group solidari-
43 For definition of the term "generation" see Chapter II, p. 16,
Note 3.
219] RESULTS 67
ty. In the first generation, the first of these factors is most
effective ; in the second generation, the last plays the most
important role. The factor of economic status remains
about constant between the other two.
(7) With regard to the ratio of intermarriage, the
various nationalities range themselves in an ascending
scale. Of the most important groups represented, the Jews
and the Negroes are lowest, the Italians are next, the Irish
are higher than the Italians, and the Northern, North
Western and some Central European peoples are highest.
(8) Distinctions of religion and of color respectively,
account for the low proportion of intermarriage among
Jews and Negroes. Lack of these barriers and the presence
of a numerous variety of similar cultural groups in the pop-
ulation accelerate the fusion of the Northern and North West-
ern European peoples. A shifting population and a somewhat
lower social prestige prevent the Italian from rising higher
in the scale as yet. Strong religious preferences tend to
limit the range of intermarriage among the Irish who other-
wise might be higher in the scale.
(9) The lower the ratio of intermarriage in the first
generation, the greater the tendency for the ratio to be high
in the second generation, and consequently the greater the
tendency for the proportion of increase to be high. For the
lowest group, the Jews, the increase is a little over 700% ;
for the middle groups, the Italians and the Irish, it is some-
what over 300% and somewhat over 200% respectively ; for
the Northern, North-Western and some Central European
peoples it is from 100% to 300%.
(10) While in the second generation there is a strik-
ing increase in the proportion of intermarriage, there is a
correspondingly striking decrease in the number of nation-
alities with which individuals of the second generation in-
termarry. The average number of nationalities for the first
generation (for both men and women) is 12 ; for the second
generation (for both men and women) it is 6.
(11) The apparent process of selection in the second
68 INTERMARRIAGE IN NEW YORK CITY [220
generation results in the choice of a group of nationalities
predominantly Northern and Northwestern European. This
choice may be determined primarily by the preponderance
of Teutonic population elements or by a combination of
this with the factor of higher social prestige and economic
stability of these groups.
(12) More than two-thirds of the intermarriages
among men and over 60% among women take place in the
higher economic classes.
(13) The largest proportion of the intermarriages takes
place among persons on the middle or mediocre culture
plane rather than on the high or low cultural level. Thus,
three-fourths of the men who intermarry are found in the
occupation groups corresponding to the middle level, name-
ly in commerce and trade, in manufacturing and mechanical
pursuits and in personal and domestic service, while only
about 10% are professional men and about 12% unskilled
workers. The same is true of the women who intermarry,
almost 87% of them being found in the middle occupation
and culture groups.
XV. FURTHER SUGGESTED USES OF DERIVED TABLES AND
ORIGINAL DATA
The Statistical tables which form the basis of the dis-
cussion in Chapter III are of two kinds: derived tables**
and tables containing the original data.*^ But since no
effort has been made to present an exhaustive analysis,
neither the derived tables nor the original data have been
fully utilized, though this is far less the case with the form-
er than with the latter. Thus, for example, from Tables
(IVa — IVi) only five ethnic groups were selected for dis-
cussion,*^ whereas the remaining 24 ethnic groups could
4* See Tables I-V inclusive, VII, VIII, IX-XIII inclusive. Chap-
ter II, pp. 23-25.
*5 See Table VI, Series 1-91 and Series 1-88 ; Statistical Ap-pendix,
pp. 101-207.
*«For the reasons directing the choice, see Chapter III, p. 46.
221] RESULTS 69
also be considered, one by one, were the requisite inform-
ation upon each one at hand. Similarly, the detailed explan-
ation of why in one ethnic group the proportion of increase
in intermarriage for the second generation is greater or less
than the proportion of increase in another ethnic group,
was omitted, owing to the lack of certain basic population
figures. Only the general trend was noted, based upon the
consideration of the mass figures.
A similar explanation holds of the use of the original
data. Aside from the obvious necessity of presenting in a
scientific work the original figures from which the working
tables are derived (since the original figures may possibly
be recombined by other students in ways different from
those of the present author, and thus yield new results) the
series of tables referred to are of value because
1) They indicate for each ethnic group separate-
ly the number of intermarriages according to gener-
ations, the nationalities with which the persons inter-
married, the nationalities with which they intermar-
ried most often and the nationalities with which they
failed to intermarry. Before any further detailed
studies of particular ethnic groups can be under-
taken, such figures as those presented in these tables
are indispensable as a beginning.
2) They furnish the data for a comparison be-
tween linguistic or culture groups and may possibly
be used to indicate the general trend of amalgama-
tion within broad racial groups such as the Baltic,
Mediterranean and Alpine racial subvarieties in the
United States.
3) They lay the basis for comparative studies
over larger or shorter periods of time.
Finally, the data for New York City presented thus far and
the type of discussion followed, may serve as a guide for
similar studies for other large cities, for smaller towns and
for rural districts, for which intermarriage statistics have
not yet been compiled. This monograph suggests what
70 INTERMARRIAGE IN NEW YORK CITY [222
kinds of facts are to be gathered to obtain significant re-
sults, what are the statistical forms into which the facts
can be thrown to yield such results, and what are the pos-
sible hypotheses that can be framed to explain the facts.
Results obtained for other centres of population can be
profitably compared with those for New York City and thus
the basis can be laid for generalizations and possibly also
forecasts as to the process of amalgamation in the United
States.
CHAPTER IV.
Interpretations: The Bearing of the Results upon
Public Policies of Assimilation
I. need for separating scientific explanations of facts
FROM their ethical EVALUATION
The chief aim in the preceding pages has been to make
clear the method and scope of this study, to indicate its
limitations and to present objectively the significant facts
and the probable explanations of these facts. The attempt
was consciously made to exclude interpretations or ethical
evaluations, for in the case of scientific explanation there
can be only one aim, namely the discovery of the true
causal relations between the phenomena studied, while in
the case of the ethical evaluation of the facts the aim may
differ with the ideal of progress set up as the final goal.
Inasmuch, however, as the original purpose of this study
was to gain facts that could be used for guidance in the
framing of public policies of assimilation, it seems desirable
to indicate the larger bearings of the data even though strictly
speaking, it does not fall within the province of this study
to do so.
The facts enumerated here show one thing almost con-
clusively. Amalgamation of the European peoples in the
United States is going on, and gathering momentum on the
way. But while the facts themselves may be incontro-
vertible, their meaning may vary with the point of view
adopted for their interpretation.
223] 71
72 INTERMARRIAGE IN NEW YORK CITY [224
II. THE IDEAL OF ETHNIC PURITY
To the advocate of ethnic purity^ the facts may point to a
fatal "mongrelization" of the American people proceeding
at a dangerously rapid pace. According to this view, an
intermarriage ratio of 14 per 100 (and probably much high-
er in the smaller communities and rural sections), with a
range of increase in the second generation of from 100% to
1000%, the rapid dilution particularly of the North Euro-
pean stocks, the disproportionate fusion in the middle
economic groups, producing a drab cultural product, are
facts to be viewed with grave concern by the American
people.
When carried to a logical limit this point of view must
result in a complete restriction of immigration on the one
hand, and in the deliberate intensification of group con-
sciousness among immigrant peoples on the other. The
aim of the first policy would be to cut off the inflow of all
additional ethnic groups that must needs be fused with
those already here. The second policy would be expected
to reduce materially the present rate of amalgamation, and
tend to hold it down to a minimum.
III. THE IDEAL OF RAPID AND THOROUGH ETHNIC
AMALGAMATION
But while there is no specific evidence as yet to disprove
1 For expressions of this view see among others, E. A. Ross, The
Old World in the New; "Racial Consequences of Immigration,"
Century Magazine, Dec, 1913, Vol. 87; "Significance of Immigration,"
The American Economic Review Supplement, Vol. II, No. 1, March,
1912, p. Z7 ; Chas. B. Davenport, Heredity in Relation to Eugenics, Ch.
V, Migrations and their Eugenic Significance, pp. 212-220; Edwin G.
Conklin, Heredity and Environm£nt, pp. 434-435 ; "The Effect of Race
Intermingling" Proceedings of the American Philosophical Association,
Nov. 4, 1917; Chas. E. Woodruff, Expansion of Races, p. 389, and p.
390; Paul Popenoe and R. H. Johnson, Applied Eugenics, Ch. XV, p.
304; A. Alleman, "Immigration and the Future American Race,"
Popular Science Monthly, Vol. 75, p. 592.
225] INTERPRETATIONS 73
the harmful effects of intermarriage among the various diverg-
ent varieties of the European peoples in America, it appears
reasonably certain, judging from general biologic principles
and from results in analagous historical processes, that such
amalgamation is not only not harmful but may even be highly
desirable^. At any rate, the danger of "mongrelization" is
remote, especially as the fusion is taking place under rather
favorable economic and social conditions. Building upon
such premises as these the ideal of ethnic homogeneity and
consequent thorough social assimilation, achieved through a
rapid and thorough mixture of the immigrant peoples, may
be opposed to that of ethnic isolation. If now the facts are
interpreted from this point of view, the advocate of ethnic
amalgamation finds much encouragement but also much that
remains to be achieved. For, his argument may shape itself
thus : An intermarriage ratio of 14 per 100 in a city like New
York is rather high, but in view of the ever-present
tendency towards the formation of self sufficient immigrant
2 For expressions of pertinent views, see, for example, Th. Waitz,
Anthropologie der Naturvolker, Vol. I, pp. 422-24; F. H. Giddings,
Principles of Sociology, p. 324, 325 ; "The American People," The
International Quarterly, June, 1903, Vol. VII, p. 291 ; G. E. Smith, "The
Influence of Racial Admixture in Egypt," The Eugenics Review, Vol.
7, 1915-1916, pp. 163-183; U. G. Weatherly, "Race and Marriage,"
American Journal of Sociology, Vol. XV, pp. 433-53, Jan., 1910 ; Papers
on "The Effects of Racial Miscegenation" by Earl Finch, and on "An-
thropological View of Race," by Felix von Luschan, in Papers on Inter-
racial Problems communicated to the First Universal Races Congress at
London, July, 1911, edited by Gustav Spiller; Ignaz Zollschan, Das
Rassen-Prohlem, 5. Abschnitt, Die Folgen von Inzucht und Rassen-
mischung; Hans Fehlinger, "Kreuzungen beim Menschen," Archiv fiir
Rassen und Gesellschaftsbiologie, 1911, pp. 447-457; Wm. Z. Ripley,
"The European Population of the United States," Huxley Memorial
Lecture for 1908. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, Vol.
XXXVIII, 1908. Race Progress and Immigration, Annals of the
American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. XXXIV, July-
Dec, 1909, p. 135; Franz Boas, The Mind of Primitive Man, p. 260;
Jerome Dowd, "The Racial Element in Social Assimilation," American
Journal of Sociology, Vol. 16, p. 633.
74 INTERMARRIAGE IN NEW YORK CITY [226
colonies, it is not by any means high enough. True, there
is an increase of approximately 300% in intermarriage among
the second generation, and a broad range of increase up to
1000%. But it would be preferable to have a fairly high
uniform rate of fusion, rather than some nationalities with
a low index of intermarriage at one end of the scale and
some with a high index at the other end, as is the case
at present. The children of the immigrants must amalga-
mate even faster than they are doing now, if a homogeneous
American people is to be created within the shortest pos-
sible period of time. Moreover, he may continue, while
fusion among the various nationalities is indeed going on,
it is nevertheless very largely within identical generations.
First generation mixes with first and second generation
with second. There is a tendency to fix certain general
habits of life reminiscent of the old world rather than of
the new. Should immigration continue, this tendency
would be further aggravated. A thorough-going fusion
would involve a much more frequent crossing of the gen-
eration lines than is indicated by the figures, and would
thus facilitate further the process of assimilation of the
foreign-born and the native-born. This applies with equal
force to the number of nationalities with which persons of
each group intermarry. Instead of reduction of the num-
ber in the second generation, as appears to be the case now,
there should be even a greater dispersion or at least the
same scattering of intermarriage among various groups as
there is in the first generation. Furthermore, he may argue,
while it is reassuring to discover that it is in the higher
economic groups that two-thirds of the intermarriages oc-
cur, the aim must be to raise this proportion to even a
higher level in order to safeguard absolutely the process of
amalgamation as far as its economic and social setting is
concerned. And finally, as to the fact that it is the mediocre
culture groups which show the largest proportion of inter-
marriage rather than the highest and the lowest groups, it
may be asserted that from the point of view of the thorough-
227] INTERPRETATIONS 75
going miscegenationist it makes comparatively little difference
what the relative proportions are. The supreme aim is to
produce a perfect blend of ethnic stocks. Cultural contrib-
utions, being primarily dependent on native capacity for
culture-building, will result naturally from a virile and ver-
satile mixed people. Even if in the rapid process of fusion
the cultural achievements of the mixing peoples should be
largely discarded, and there should result a temporary gen-
eral lowering of the culture level of the new stock, the loss
would surely be made up by leaps and bounds once the
homogeneous nation has settled down to a unified national
life.
Now, how is this process of amalgamation to be con-
sciously accelerated? Here, too, the advocate of rapid and
complete fusion may point out, the facts themselves sug-
gest the methods that would logically have to be employed.
Three forces, it was found, were at work, mainly respon-
sible for the intermingling of men and women of various
ethnic groups: preponderance of marriageable men over
women, rise in economic status and a diminution of the
intensity of group consciousness. Whatever strengthens
these forces also hastens the process of fusion. The first
factor finds its freest field of operation in the first genera-
tion, the last operates most effectively in the second genera-
tion. It is not inconceivable that through conscious social
control each of these forces could be so manipulated as to
be raised indefinitely in its potency. Through a preferential
treatment of single male immigrants, a wider and wider dis-
parity might be created between the number of marriage-
able men and the number of marriageable women among
persons of the first generation. This would act as an in-
direct compulsion upon both men and women to intermarry,
as indeed it already does, although to a much smaller ex-
tent under the present conditions. The factor of economic
status is even more amenable to control. Every step taken
in advancing the living and working conditions of the
masses of immigrants, along with that of the native-born
76 INTERMARRIAGE IN NEW YORK CITY [228
tends to augment their mobility, to create wider and wider
contacts and thus to increase the probability of more fre-
quent fusion among the various nationalities.
But while the possibility of controlling the first factor
(disparity of sex ratios among the marriageable) may be some-
what illusory and its advisability open to serious doubt, and
while the control of the second factor (rise in economic status)
for the specific purpose of accelerating ethnic fusion may
be somewhat irrelevant, the conscious accentuation of the
third and apparently most powerful factor, (decrease of in-
tensity of group consciousness) is not only more feasible,
but will in the long run produce the desired effect with un-
erring certainty. One need only examine carefully, so the
argument may run, the forces that tend to sap the spirit of
group solidarity among the immigrant peoples to see how
easily the task might be accomplished.^ Encourage disper-
sion of the foreign-born populations within the individual
communities and throughout the land, discourage on the
part of the younger generation especially, affiliation with
specifically immigrant communal activities, frown upon
educational and cultural undertakings calculated to impart
to the younger generation a knowledge and an appreciation
of the cultural heritage of the immigrant group, condemn
nationalistic leaders who persistently stir up in the immi-
grant the remembrances and the passions of a life left be-
hind, treat with fine scorn the vain attempts of the intel-
lectuals to formulate theories of "adjustment" to American
life ; above all, foster in school, in civic life and in interna-
tional relations a positive ideal of national unity, national
homogeneity, singleness of political as well as cultural al-
legiance — do all this, so argues the ethnic fusionist, do it
steadily and systematically, and in two generations, at the
most in three, the polyglot American people will be a mere
memory and a fully blended, unified nation an accomplished
fact.
3 See Chapter III, p. 41.
229] INTERPRETATIONS yy
IV. THE IDEAL OF GRADUAL AMALGAMATION
To this reading of the facts still another may be opposed,
taking as its basic premise that too sudden and too great a
rupture of ethnic bonds is not only undesirable but may turn
out to be dangerous. Were there involved in intermarriage
nothing but the stark fact of biologic fusion of individuals
of not very dissimilar ethnic varieties, there might perhaps
be no serious consequences, even if the process went ahead
on a large scale and with increasing rapidity. Much more,
however, is involved. Intermarriage, it may be urged, is
equally a sociological fact. It is a blending of different cul-
tures, through the medium of specific representatives of
these cultures. In the newly created home life two civiliza-
tions in miniature are contending for supremacy. On the
one hand, the more dissimilar are the attitudes, the outlooks,
the habits of the mating persons, the more difficult will it
be to create a harmonious composite.* On the other hand,
the more colorless, the more de-vitalized the cultural equip-
ment of either husband or wife or both, the surer will the
new family life be characterized by lack of color, lack of
insight into and appreciation of the culture values inherent
in the ethnic backgrounds of the parties to the marriage.
Violent transitions in mental and social life, then, are to be
* See for example Fishberg's conclusion that mixed marriages be-
tween Jews and non-Jews are three to four times more likely to be
dissolved than pure marriages. Maurice Fishberg, The Jews, p. 217.
Also Karl Walcker, Grundriss der Statistik, p. 138, quoted by Hoffman
in Race Traits and Tendencies of the American Negro : "It has been
found that the number of children to a marriage was 4.35 where both
persons were of the same religion (Christian) but only 1.58 where
the father was Christian and the mother was a Jewess. When both
were Jews the number of births to a marriage was 4.21 but only 1.78
where the father was evangelized, and 1.66 where the father was a
Catholic," p. 192. Walcker believes that the barriers which make mar-
riage of Jews and Christians less fruitful are psychological rather than
physiological. For a statement of the general underlying principle,
see Edward Westermark, The History of Human Marriage, Ch. XIII,
The Law of Similarity, pp. 278-289.
78 INTERMARRIAGE IN NEW YORK CITY [230
avoided as much as possible. The passage from one phase
to another, must be relatively smooth to avoid the deterior-
ating effects of the shock that must come to the nervous
system and to the complex social organism.^
One who interprets the facts in the light of these prin-
ciples, feels considerable apprehension in reviewing them.
According to his view, the striking increase in the propor-
tion of intermarriage in the second generation, far from
being a cause for rejoicing, should make one pause and ask
if not more is lost than gained by the sudden snapping of
group bonds which this indicates. For, it must be repeated,
the intermarriage ratio marks only the lower limit of group
disruption, so to speak, and as a rule the higher the inter-
marriage ratio, the more extensive the breaking away from
the group life in all its phases. The adherent of gradual amal-
gamation would observe further, that in spite of the powerful
centrifugal forces operating within the groups there are
counteracting centripetal tendencies present. This is shown by
the occurrence of intermarriages to a large extent within iden-
tical generations, and also by the fact that the proportion of
mixed marriages between persons of different generations de-
creases as the interval between the generations increases.
Rather than decrying this tendency as leading towards a fixa-
tion of types instead of making for thoroughgoing amalgama-
tion, it should be looked upon as a wholesome brake upon too
precipitate a process, thus providing in a small measure the
more gradual transition from one generation to another,
which is so greatly needed. Homogeneity achieved more
slowly in this fashion will be more genuine and more per-
manent than the apparent unification resulting from too
quick a fusion.
One who holds this point of view may go further and
say: That there is an irresistible impulse making for eth-
*For an analysis of neurotic symptoms growing out of the in-
tense mental conflict due to violent transitions from one type of
thought-life to another, radically different type, see the instructive case
cited in A. A. Brill's Psychanalysis, p. 102, Second Edition.
2^1] INTERPRETATIONS 79
nic amalgamation can hardly be doubted in the face of the
facts as a whole. Now since this amalgamation is probably
inevitable and will proceed at a cumulative speed, there
ought to be some effort to save as much as possible from
the wreckage that results from the collapse of the cultural
heritages of the fusing groups. This is all the more urgent
since the mixture is going on primarily in the mediocre cul-
ture groups. Here there is neither the cultural equipment
nor a keen enough self-consciousness to produce the desire
to transmit to the rising generation culture values worth
while conserving and incorporating into American life.
While the biologic products of the union will in all proba-
bility be of virile stock, the cultural atmosphere into which
the new generation is born will be nondescript. The re-
sult will be not so much a deterioration of cultural life, for,
where there is little or none of it, it is hardly accurate to
speak of deterioration. The result will rather be that at the
critical moment in the life of the growing second generation
there will be nothing to offer it but a drab outlook upon
life. But what is far more to be regretted, the unique op-
portunity that America has of utilizing the rich cultural
heritages of the immigrant groups and weaving them into
the texture of its growing civilization, — an opportunity such
as no other nation ever was offered under the same circum-
stances — will inevitably be lost. To be consoled by the
thought that the new versatile nation resulting from the
fusion of many peoples will soon replace, by the potency of
its own genius, what may have been discarded or neglected
or deliberately ignored in the culture of the immigrant
groups, is very much like justifying the barbarities the in-
vading Germanic tribes committed upon the civilization of
ancient Rome, on the basis that they ruthlessly cleared the
ground for the creation of a newer and more virile culture,
irrespective of the high- achievements already recorded in
the Greco-Roman world. That a thousand years later the
more civilized descendants of these empire wreckers should
rediscover the ruined remnants of a glorious past and cher-
8o INTERMARRIAGE IN NEW YORK CITY [232
ish them as long-lost treasures is ample proof of the original
sin and madness of the fathers.
And finally, he may argue, this faith in the spontaneous
creation of a new culture lacks a firm scientific basis, as it
is grounded in an erroneous view of the nature of progress.
Uncontrolled, unguided social movements tend to level
down, whereas the essence of progress is conscious, delib-
erate selection and accentuation of those social forces that
tend in the direction of improvement and perfection of group
life.
Quite naturally the methods by which this point of view
is to be translated into action will differ from those of the
radical fusionist.
Amalgamation being inevitable, it is needless to increase,
through preferential immigration of single males, for example,
the disparity between the number of marriageable men and
of marriageable women of the first generation. To do so
would be to encourage the growth of difficult social prob-
lems arising out of an unsettled type of population, such as
these unmarried male immigrants are bound to be. Experi-
ence in the past in the congested American cities, has shown
the grave dangers both to the community and to the immi-
grant.
To the improvement of the economic status of the
groups there can be no objection. But the facts show that
only a comparatively small share can be assigned to this
force in the production of amalgamation. There is not
much promise, then, in this method, even though it could
be applied on a larger scale and more consciously than is
likely to be the case.
As to assiduously inducing a lack of group conscious-
ness among immigrants, or undermining group solidarity
in whatever form found, quite the opposite attitude is to be
assumed. The fundamental objection to congested im-
migrant quarters is not that they tend to keep alive old-
world habits and old-world interests. Far greater and more
immediately menacing evils are the unsanitary and over-
2^^] INTERPRETATIONS 8l
crowded tenements, the lack of recreational facilities for the
youth and educational opportunities for the immigrant
adult, the poorly lighted, ill-ventilated shops and factories,
the inadequate protection to life — conditions over which the
immigrant as such has practically no control, but must ac-
cept as he finds them upon his arrival. In a more favor-
able physical and economic setting much, if not all, of the
apparent unsavoriness of immigrant life would fall away,
as it actually does, as soon as circumstances are changed
for the better. Moreover, rather than discourage affiliation
with immigrant communal activities on the part of the
younger generation, every effort should be made to foster
among them an intelligent and appreciative interest in the
cultural activities of their elders. The educational efforts
of the immigrant community directed to this end are to be
commended as contributions to the spiritual enrichment of
the rising generation of Americans; if need be, construc-
tively criticized, but hardly frowned upon as unworthy of
a free democratic life. Nationalistic leaders in the group,
instead of being condemned as unwelcome and misguided
enthusiasts are rather to be brought into closer contact
with the aspirations of the larger American community,
thus enabling them to reinterpret for their own people, the
life in the new environment. Efforts of leaders of thought
among the immigrants to formulate "theories of adjust-
ment," instead being relegated to the class of intellectual
vaporings, should rather be examined as reasoned expres-
sions of a deep-seated desire to fit into the new life and yet
preserve the individuality of the group. The net result of
this more sympathetic attitude, may possibly turn out to
be a considerable heightening of group consciousness and
perhaps a temporary retardation of actual fusion. But ulti-
mately amalgamation will take place and with a younger
generation, inheriting something of the cultural past of its
group, the process will go ahead on a progressively higher
cultural plane. America will thus gain far more in the long
run than she loses.
82 INTERMARRIAGE IN NEW YORK CITY [234
V. THE IDEAL OF INTELLECTUAL AND EMOTIONAL HARMONY
One Other point of view is possible. It is to ignore the
fact of intermarriage. Or if not ignore it, at least to minim-
ize its importance. Accordingly, it may be said, whether the
group fuse or not biologically is really of no consequence.
Intermarriage is not an absolute essential of assimilation.
The co-existence of racial varieties with a strong spirit of
national unity in France, Switzerland, Italy and even Ger-
many would tend to prove that racial homogeneity is not
an absolute essential of national unity. If then, the for-
mer is not to be considered the siimmufn bonum of national
development, then failure to fuse biologically need not be
counted as something running counter to the democratic
ideal. The concept of democracy, must, therefore, be fur-
ther expanded to include ethnic stocks, which, though men-
tally and morally adjusted, nevertheless remain biologically
more or less distinct. Whether in any specific case it would
have been more advantageous for the group to have fused
or to have remained intact is as impossible to ascertain
as it is profitless to speculate upon. For, if the group dis-
appears there is no way of telling what it might have con-
tributed if it had not fused. And similarly, if the group has
kep't intact, there is no means of finding out what its con-
tributions would have been if it had fused.
But even if racial homogeneity were a desirable national
ideal it is extremely doubtful if it can ever be achieved
completely. Thus far the fusion of the various white
ethnic stocks does not seem to have produced a real blend.®
^ "Study of Old Americans," by Dr. Ales Hrdlicka, curator of
Physical Anthropology of the Smithsonian Institution, Journal of
Heredity, VI, page 509, Nov., 1914. Also "The Old White Americans"
in the Proceedings of XlXth International Congress of Americanists,
Washington, 1917. "One of the main objects of his study was to de-
termine whether the descendants of the early American settlers, living
in a new environment, and more or less constantly intermarrying were
being amalgamated into a distinct sub-type of the white race. Enough
has already been found, as this preliminary report shows, to prove that
such amalgamation has not taken place to any important degree. The
235] INTERPRETATIONS 83
Moreover, the highest form of assimilation exists not
where one individuality swallows up another, or one group
merges indistinguishably with another, but where each side
adapts to its own personality the unique contributions of
the other/ That is, each side utilizes the other as a stim-
ulus for a continuous creative life. The number of dis-
persistence in heredity of certain features, which run down even
through six or eight generations is one of the remarkable results
brought out by the study. If the process could continue for a few
hundred years, Dr. Hrdlicka thinks, it might reach a point where one
could speak of the members of old American families as of a distinct
stock. But so far this point has not been reached; the Americans are
almost as diverse and variable, it appears, as were their first ancestors
in this country." From the Journal of Heredity, March, 1917, p. 104-
105. "The Melting Pot a Myth/'
■^ Assimilation conceived in this form seems to be the central thought
of Prof. Dewey in his address on "Nationalizing Education," Ad-
dresses and Proceedings of the National Education Association, New
York, 1916, Vol. IV, p. 185. He says: "I find that many who talk
the loudest about the need of a supreme and unified Americanism of
spirit really mean some special code or tradition to which they happen
to be attached. They have some pet tradition which they would impose
upon all. In thus measuring the scope of Americanism by some single
element which enters into it they are themselves false to the spirit of
America. Neither Englandism nor New-Englandism, neither Puritan
nor Cavalier, any more than Teuton or Slav, can do anything but
furnish one note in a vast symphony.
"The way to deal with hyphenism, in other words, is to welcome
it in the sense of extracting from each people its special good, so that
it shall surrender into a common fund of wisdom and experience what
it especially has to contribute. All of these surrenders and contribu-
tions taken together create the national spirit of America. The dan-
gerous thing is for each factor toi isolate itself, to try to live off its
past, and then to attempt to impose itself upon other elements, or, at
least, to keep itself intact and thus refuse to accept what other cultures
have to offer, so as thereby to be transmuted into authentic American-
ism." Or, even in a more vigorous vein: "No matter how loudly any
one proclaims his Americanism, if he assumes that any one racial strain,
any one component culture, no matter how early settled it was in our
territory, or how effective it has proven in its own land, is to furnish
a pattern to which all other strains and cultures are to conform, he is
a traitor to an American nationalism." p. 184-185.
84 INTERMARRIAGE IN NEW YORK CITY [236
tinctive individualities is then constantly multiplied instead
of reduced and the only problem worthy of attention is the
harmonization of the lives of these unique individualities.
But a deeper objection, by far, can be raised. It is, that
to strive for racial homogeneity would divert the national
imagination and the national will from the ideal of intellec-
tual and emotional harmony among the masses of diverse
elements, to the ideal of physical commingling and unity of
blood relationship. Doubtless the latter is easier of attain-
ment. But in the spiritual struggles for the realization of
the former, profounder levels of unity are constantly
reached and the national ideal thus approaches step by step
the all-embracing human ideal. Herein is to be found the
only adequate answer to the insistent and rightly insistent
cry for national unity and the dread of America as a "poly-
glot boarding-house."
To encourage, then, the growth of cultural conscious-
ness among the various immigrant groups with the aid of
their ultimate disappearance is like calling upon them to
make elaborate preparation for their own burial ceremonies.
Why not leave the question of biologic fusion open for the
decision of each individual and each group? The burden of
conserving cultural individuality rests after all upon the
group as such. If it has a virile cultural life, no artificial
stimulants will be needed to keep it alive. If it lacks vital-
ity and melts away in contact with other superior cultures,
then it has surely merited its fate. According to this view,
one duty only can rightfully be laid upon the immigrant
groups. It is, that they must become an integral part of
American life, in the sense of not holding aloof from its
broad, common interests, but sharing by sentiment and by
deed in the common aspirations and enterprises of the
whole people. Thus as a phase of a comprehensive Ameri-
can national consciousness, cultural group consciousness
becomes an asset in the expanding life of the nation, and its
furtherance a distinct service towards the creation of a
unique and rich civilization.
237] INTERPRETATIONS 85
VI. IMPLICATIONS FOR GENERAL SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY
Finally, attention may be called in a few words to the
deeper implications for sociological theory of the problem
discussed in this monograph. Amalgamation of divergent
ethnic stocks in the United States is proceeding within a
democratic setting. There is no attempt to produce na-
tional unity and solidarity through compulsion, as was the
case, for example, in some of the European countries, such
as Austria-Hungary, Russia and Germany. This situation
offers to the United States the unique opportunity of ex-
perimenting in the field of conscious social control of the
transmission through education of the varied cultural her-
itages of the immigrant peoples. It opens up the possibility
of consciously creating a synthetic culture. Moreover, it
suggests the larger possibilities of world organization upon
the basis of harmonious co-operation of racial and cultural
groups within the State, rather than upon the basis of
forced unification.
CHAPTER V.
Statistical Appendix
introductory note
This Appendix contains all statistical tables enumerated
on pp. 23-25 in Chapter II, Method and Scope, with the excep-
tion of Tables I, II, III, IVa, VIII, IX, X, XI, XII. These
tables were inserted into the body of the text for purposes
of more convenient reference in following the argument at
various successive points.
Tables IVb-IVi (pp. 93-100) supplement Table IVa (p. 43)
by presenting the proportions of intermarriage arranged in
order of magnitude in five classes (Class I-Class V) for
men and women separately and for each generation separ-
ately. These tables, together with Table IVa form the
basis of the general conclusion that the Jews and Negroes
are at the lowest point of the scale of proportions of inter-
marriage, the Italians, Irish, Poles (Russian and Austrian),
Greeks, Finns, at the middle point, while the Northern,
Northwestern and some Central European peoples tend
to gather near the highest point.
Table V is a summary table giving in alphabetical order
the nationalities studied in this monograph, indicating the
number of marriages and number of intermarriages record-
ed for each national group and for each "generation" within
each group, and the proportion of intermarriage for each
nationality and for each "generation" within the group.
The alphabetical arrangement makes reference to a par-
ticular nationality easy, while the basic figures from which
the proportions of intermarriage were calculated make it
239] 87
88 INTERMARRIAGE IN NEW YORK CITY [240
possible to evaluate correctly in each individual case the
true significance of the ratio of intermarriage.
Table VI, Series 1-91 (for men) (pp. 101-154) and Series
1-88 (for women) (pp. 155-207) show the ntimber of inter-
marriages for each nationality separately, the nationalities
with which men and women respectively intermarried and
the generations of the persons intermarrying. Each of the
nine possible combinations of the three generation groups
(1st, 2nd, 3rd generation) is noted and the cases of marriage
are classified under them. In the case of the men the com-
binations are: marriages between 1st generation men and
1st generation women (of the same or of a different
nationality) ; 1st generation men and 2nd generation
women; 2nd generation men and 1st generation women;
1st generation men and 3rd generation women ; 3rd genera-
tion men and 1st generation women; 2nd generation men
and 2nd generation women; 2nd generation men and 3rd
generation women; 3rd generation men and 2nd generation
women; 3rd generation men and 3rd generation women.
Similarly for the women where the order is reversed in each
combination.
Thus, for example, in Table I, Series 1-91, (p. 103) the
figures giving the number of intermarriages between Ar-
menian men and Irish women (the seventh line below the
caption) are to be read as follows: Number of intermar-
riages between Armenian men of the 1st generation and
Irish women of the 2nd generation — 2\ total number of in-
marriages between Armenian men of the 1st generation and
Irish women of the 2nd generation — 2; total number of in-
termarriages between Armenian men and Irish women — 4.
Or, in the case of the tables in Series 1-88 (for women) :
In Table II, Series 1-88 (p. 157), the figures giving the num-
ber of intermarriages between Bohemian women and Italian
men (the sixteenth line below the caption) are to be read
as follows: Number of intermarriages between Bohemian
women of the 1st generation and Italian men of the 1st gen-
eration — 3 ; number of intermarriages between Bohemian
241] STATISTICAL APPENDIX 89
women of the 1st generation and Italian men of the 2nd
generation — 1 ; number of intermarriages between Bohemian
women of the 2nd generation and Italian men of the 1st
generation — 2\ number of intermarriages between Bo-
hemian women of the 2nd generation and Italian men of the
2nd generation — 2 ; total number of intermarriages between
Bohemian women and Italian men — 8.
For a statement of the value of these two series of tables
for further study see p. 69.
Table VII (p. 208) gives the percentage of increase in
intermarriage of the 2nd generation over the 1st generation.
The proportions of increase are grouped into 8 classes, with
an additional class indicating proportions of decrease. In
this table are presented, in a re-grouping, the figures in
Table V (opp. p. 100) giving the percentage of increase and
decrease in proportion of intermarriage of the 2nd generation
over the first. Table VII, taken in conjunction with Tables
IVa-IVi and Table V form the basis for the general conclu-
sion that the lower the ratio of intermarriage in the first
generation, the greater the ratio in the second, and therefore
the greater the relative increase.
Tables (XIV-XVII) present figures on the basis of
which the general conclusion is reached that, while in the
first generation there is a general preponderance of mar-
riageable men and women, there is a definite approach to an
equality of sex ratios of marriageable persons in the second
generation. (For the application of this result to the argu-
ment, see Chapter III, p. 36.)
ABBREVIATIONS
I. F B F P=foreign born of foreign parents=lst gen-
eration.
N B F P=native born of foreign parents=2nd gen-
eration.
N B N P==native bom of native parents=3rd genera-
tion.
II. Austria (Boh.)=Austria (Bohemian) ; Austria (Germ.)
=Austria (German) ; Austria (Ital.)=Austria (Ital-
ian) ; Austria ( Jew. )= Austria (Jewish) ; Austria
(Pol.)-=Austria (Polish); B. W. I (Col.)=British
West Indies (Colored) ; B. W. I. (Engl.)=British
West Indies (English) ; Bulgaria (Jew.)=Bulgaria
(Jewish) ; Canada (Col.)=Canada (Colored) ; Can-
ada (Engl.)=Canada (English) ; Cuba (Col.)=Cuba
(Colored) ; Cuba (Span.)=Cuba (Spanish) ; D. W. I.
(Col.)=Dutch West Indies (Colored) ; England (Jew.)=
England (Jewish) ; France (Jew.)=France (Jewish) ;
Germany (Jew.)=Gei*many (Jewish) ; Germany (N.)=
Germany (North) ; Germany (S.)=Germany (South) ;
Holland (Jew.)=Holland (Jewish) ; Hungary (Germ.)
==Hungary (German) ; Hungary (Hung.)=Hungary
(Hungarian) ; Hungary (Jew.)=Hungary (Jewish) ;
Hungary (Sl.)=Hungary (Slovak) ; Mexico (Span.)=
Mexico (Spanish) ; Porto Rico (Span.)=Porto Rico
(Spanish) ; Rumania (Jew.)=Rumania (Jewish) ; Russia
(Jew.)=Russia (Jewish) ; Russia (Pol.)=Russia (Po-
lish) ; Switzerland (Germ.)=Switzerland (German) ;
Switzerland (Ital.)=Switzerland (Italian) ; Turkey
(Jew.)=Turkey (Jewish) ; U. S. (Jew.)=United States
(Jewish) ; U. S. (Col.)=United States (Colored) ; Ven-
ezula (Span.)=Venezuela (Spanish).
90 [242
t
a
s ?
243]
STATISTICAL APPENDIX
91
It
oS.
I
SiJ. 1-!.
,
1
S
5
'3
•
s
10
3
8
10
S
S
2
i
1
:$
2
8.
8
1
i
4
1
1
si
1
1
1
1
3
i
4*
«
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
JS
1
1
1
It
1
i
1
1
«
1
1
1
i
8
Si
ft
ni
i
10
3
to
IS
s
;3
1
1
«
1
3
1
I
1
I
if
1
m
<-•
S
5
g
2
i
1
a
2
d
^
r*
a
s
1
1
1
1
I
1
p
i
1
1
i
i
t
«
1
1
8
1
s
Slirfii
0»
10
10
1
i
a
1
1
i
1
3
■
^^Sllii
S
^
to
I
4
2
g
2
n
1
s
3
s
«
£
3
s
10
to
1
J
ii
J
4
J
1
1
Li
1
I
I
m
J
1
J
1
Ij
i
i
■
1
8
1
J
]
1
i
t
1
a
■H
_«
92
INTERMARRIAGE IN NEW YORK CITY
[244
gabl« CT
Cla»6ifioatioa of Katlonalltl«9 acoordlng to yraportlon of Intel
Ban and Woiiwa of tho SteccsA Oonsratlon
(oongldar«d aa gbb k>o<p >
(1908 - X912)
rises.
(for tte BoBtar <tf
iiI>OBi«iioh tiiB ooavBUtloa of ^ ptrwntag** la baaed, aaa takU V. p. 100)
n
siJ.
iirr&li
ll
I
8
»i^_S
s .
iiliil
h I
Hiiii
fei
sAiHil
£3
245]
STATISTICAL APPENDIX
XAflI.8 LLi
Olwltloatlon of tetloaal ltles acecpaiaa to I»oportlon of Iatwaarrtaa>
jgn Of tfca lat aM 2ad Qenar^tl^S'
{ooMldeawd M am gpmnyt
(Jte tte BBBMr of OMos ^ton whloh tDe oongntatloa of t3>s paroontaeBS la baaed, •
93
«abl« T, p.lOOj
ill
I.
hi
i
5
5*^
iiiiill
iiiii
ITT
mil.
J
3i^ SJ,
3
-Hi
I
if
I «
I I
' i
W
2 s
I
IS
94 INTERMARRIAGE IN NEW YORK CITY
OlABelfleatlon of aatloBa lltl«« aooor d lng to Pranportlon of iBternarrlaaK
Ken of Hxe Flret Qgneratloa
[246
(Vor «h»
(X90e - 1912)
of OM«s qpoa whleh tte ooatntatlon of the perMatag** i« teMl, m« fable T p^lOO!
liiiliLiJ
8'
8
^ ' ' ^.
S 8
§
S
•*Slill
s
|S
*"sill
si
'?
"88
h
iJ< iii
ill III
« -' 1 S
*iiii
ii
Ii
1
247] STATISTICAL APPENDIX 95
las acaardi.ai to PMutrtlan n* lHt«ti»>i*<a<i
t
Men^.JJl« SecoBA tfcncmtlon
(for tb* ovter of OMca opon which tt» ouvntatUn e
r tan* p«rM»t«flea la UmA, •*• «A1* T, p. lOO )
J!
8
i-
i
1" i i"
» a s s
1 i i i
III
i
s
s
8
i
s
s
s
s
\
^
p
8
i
8
i
r
1
3
8
S
9
i
T\
1
1
1
III
ilil
1 S 1 1
Hi
1
\
1
1
1
s
3
1
3
1
1
i
1
1
i
I
1
I
1
I
!
\
I
1
in
'M^\
1
8
n-i
1
1
J
1
f
i
111
1
S
^iiilli
•J
8
^
.
i
1
i
1
1*
1
i
1
1
^lliili
!
s
«
S3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
j
iliiiii
S
^
2
•<
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
96
INTERMARRIAGE IN NEW YORK CITY
[248
SJ^J-k.
X£
glagytflcatlon of gatlocaim.»B gj^oara igg t<> frcgcgt toa of TMeToarrlatf
gooBa of tbe lat p,?d 2nd feir ei fAtiooa
(ooi!*ida?o& as o^'« ffraup}
(for the anmbar of osMt apoa iriiloh the ooovatation of ttaa paroentagoa is based, see fabl* T, p. ]00}
1
slllall
•
8
s
PI
S
i
s
s
If
"g
10
i
i
I
1
1
i
*
I
i
i
i
1
I
i
1
sg
a
t
^
^
3
S
8
1
1
1
1
J
1
4;
g
1
if
s
i
1
1
i5
a
K
s
4>
1
s
1
1
1
dtht
s
8
k
r-
«o
s
8
S
1
s
i
5
«
g
n
S
s
^
n
S.
-7
1
i 1
1
1
1
s
a
1
1
I
i
:'m
M
a
1;
<«
^
1
«
i
i
s
t
8
1
1
i
4S
s
1
t
1
s
2)
»
S
5
s
a
—
«« «i>
^^
ii
5
^
3sl
1
rJ
3
!
1
i
1
i
1
1
«ii Ijs
a
iSlFji
Jfe-
3-8
s
*«
s
a
,_
10
S
«0
3
«•
s
s
s
N
*.
J3
t
s
s
3
H
~
^
_^
_
.
—
■C 2
"•It
^
&
i
1
i
i-
s
IP
1
a
1
2
2
1
i
1
1
8
i
1
1
5
1
1
1
i
I
i
1
5
d
s
i
i
t
1
-s
1
s
t
n
3
1
^
•
1.
3
.1
1
11
1
I
J
S
249]
STATISTICAL APPENDIX
97
98
INTERMARRIAGE IN NEW YORK CITY
[250
ft
Iliilli
i
s
s
s
s
s
8
S
8
3
3
S
8
i
i
]
}
i
1
3*
8 1 1
i i i
n
-
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
i
1
i
1
i
i
1
i
1
■
<
1
j
l
1
1
- 3 -
1 € 5
1 s i
« ' ' s '
IH
t#
10
ft?
t
Iriitii
5
8
ig
a
■«
.!§
1
i
i!'.
fr
£
a
1
1
i
«|
1
i
2
1
1
^ . , i .
p-
~"
J|
^IIhII
J3
If-
1
%k
»
1
si
1
2
i
I
«. . . s .
il
aiiili
0»
2
<0
11
nil
J
!
1
1
!
I
^1
1
i
i
a
1
1
:iiilii
8
8
s
S
s
S
s
'
-il
^
n
CO
^
N
N*
I
j»
i
i
1
1
ii
1
1
I
1
4
i
I
3
1
1
1
TABLE VI
Series 1—91
r MEN
(For a discussion of the method of reading these tables and of
their further utilization, see Introductory Note, page 87.)
ICX)
INTERMARRIAGE IN NEW YORK CITY
[252
55
1
lilli
=' C as:
iijfl
iPII
<
11*11
Il
^ a
li'ii
ll«li
^1
1
1
1
^
{2
C<l
■*
■*
(M
S
;
^
:
bJ
^
eo
c»
r^
JJC.
»H Cil CJ 1-»
ss
<
i
•c
1
1
•
'1
i
i
i
m
I
_2
J
_8
■5
\
4
_J
<
_2
<
.*
-<
1
5
w
!N
<M
^
ec
ec
S3
N
CO
i
eo e« rt
t^
1-1 ■* «
s
-
<
eo
§
i^
t^
^
^
<M OJ «• ** 5; «>
<M
i
i
1
Si
■|
<
j
1
>
a
e
1
1
!2
1
c
t:
>
1
1
1
c
•t:
I
1
J=
j:
j=
Ji
j:
^
^
^
J3
.c
j:
^
i
Austria (Bo
Austria (Bo
Austria (Bo
Austria (Bo
Austria (Bo
Austria (Bo
Austria (^Bn
<
<
Austria (Bo
Austria (Bo
Austria (Bo
Austria (Bo
253]
STATISTICAL APPENDIX
lOI
(ij ^ :5 o^
a f^ ■s o ^
CD P^ is r5 P=H
O !^ i: r*i fe
C3 g; -^ O fe
1
!0
(M
t^
■<»<
CO
""•
CO
«t>
S;
-<n
«5
c*
s
(M
Cv» CO 00 c^
§
«5 :
-^ (M •
'H <M •
<0 ^ ,-1 •
o •
s
Ui
<
E
■<n
o>
3 -o
<
J,
(M
'"' "* "^ SJ '^ '"'
CO
CM
|«C.
i-< so
. - - ^ <>» ^ « «§ - ;*
>OMOr-li-lrt(MC^C^OO— <
i
1
1
<
1
h
ii
-a
n
1C
1
i
5&
iJ
I
is
y
3 ^
II
?i
3 1
DC
3
\
!j
3"
DtC
1
i
i
2
H
2
1
1
i
1
i
c
1
a:
:
•i
1
-
a E
13
DC.
3.2
:1
1 -fl
li
I
a £
3 S
11
DC.
3 I
§
J
ij
is
2 4
3 .J
§ :
A*
a £
3 %
i1
3C.
I!
DC
>1 <
3«
3.
3 ^
§
3 I
il
'1
> S
[ <
J
n
1 -el
ic
n
iC
5 ■*
i 1
li
1 <
1
c
si
<
1
ll
"I
li
il
I ■<
3,C
II
1 <
> S3
il
H
102
INTERMARRIAGE IN NEW YORK CITY
[254
o Ph ^ S i
Pi ^ gPL,
Ph
■gfe
O
W r-1
43 4>
•I"
^S
CO fa
SO
gfa
tofa
■1°'
fa "^^fa
<N
(N
(M
(M
S3
J
i
<
~
l-H (N
<M tH rt C<» »-t i-H
S
<
1
1
1
■1
>
1
1
T
"1
11
It
\1
It
.2
i1
ii
J <
<
<
'3
1
to 00 <M PS
g§
00
1
§
^
«c
J2
g-^
^ «o
•* rH
SS
J
<
(M (M
!:;
!"■"
OS
l-H ■*
^ (N
5:
e3
CO 1-1 00 »-l 1-1 OS
S?<^- :
i
i
.s
"a
•1
<
i.
i
I
1 c
1
C
1
J
1
5C
1
a
i
1
)
"1
1
1
'1
s
■3
i
J
i
•I
S c
3 c
II
3 c
* <
1
3
•<
^1
i "2
! <
1 e
ii
3 a
* <
5 <
;|
5i
il
* <
ii
ri
w
5 <
2
^1
•1
il
3 -fl
ii
3 0;
n
;
255]
STATISTICAL APPENDIX
103
5 0H ^ gPn
SOh^ g^
C3 f^ ^ C5 [^
z: PQ -e ii «
^25 ^^^
C3 ^ .^
go*
o
•fl
eo OS
^
CC
(N
c
<M
CO
CSI
m
;
s
3
CM
^"
to
<M
"* »-i rt
5)
PC
<
1
1
1
1
1
0.
i
52
1
'1
>
1
2
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
"1
1
1
1
1
i
i
1
1
1
1
J
•I
1
1
1
1
1
P
1
(N
(N
(N
i
00
00
J
OS
c3
5
z
H
I
CO
in
OCC<IIMi-l<M.-l.-l(M.-l
i
•c
c
J
i
1
1
i
1
1
>
i
s
1
a
C
J
1
1
1
'i
i
PQ
1
PC
.1
pq
pq
J
pq
pq
pq
pq
pq
i
I04
INTERMARRIAGE IN NEW YORK CITY
[256
_ W •'"'
IS
PL*
052:
1'^
a fe S O fe
C4 <N t^ Ttt
oe
N
es«
•
;
3
z
2
z
1-
E
(M CQ ■*
<»
<o
1=^-
e^
"5
^ ^ ej -H ,^ (M •
R
1
1
1
5
1
■|
-5
>
i
ii
pc
>
J
^ >
; i
5C
1
1
5tl
1
i
c
C!
1
a
1
1
•s
1
iff
5 1-
5 PC
jp:
'p:
31
ipc
p:
it
Jp:
'1
p:
'1
p:
^1
ipc
"1
t-
PC
'1
PC
P3
1
a>
5;
<M
N
J
t^
r*
2
CM
l
1
•t
PC
1
i
-2
J
1
1
I
-3
1
H
257]
STATISTICAL APPENDIX
105
S
1
li
5|i
II
'Is
If
5|l
11
11
ill
.« w ->
j.^C.-.»^^^OCOO-H--CO^
j^ .* ^ ^ ^ C^ ^ gj -H ^ CO ^ g
••••••Mi:: :
"=>::: i-'^S \^ \ \ \ \ \
»-(•••■ i>.
J :::::::::::::: :
f5
;;;;;;;;;;; <M ; CM
2«0'-i • •'-1 ■ -to -^ .,H_irt .
u ::::::
eCi-f-'T-H-OilM-.-i-- 00
I ; MM NiM
S ::::::'=■:::: : S2
QOrtcq -co • .(Nec-*^ • -c^im
^ _^ :.^o^^^ : _. 2
Canada (Engl
Austria (Pol.)
B. W. I. (Engl.)
Belgium
Canada (French)
Cuba
Denmark
England
France
Germany
Germany (North)
Germany (South)
HoUand
Hungary (Germ.)
Hungary (SI.)
Ireland
Italy
Hungary (Jew)
Norway
Portugal
Russia (Jew)
Scotland
Sweden
Switzerland (French)
Switzerland (Germ.)
United States (Col.)
Wales
Canada (Engl.)
Canada (Engl.)
Canada (Engl.)
Canada (Engl.)
Canada (Engl.)
Canada (Engl.)
Canada (Engl.)
Canada (Engl.)
Canada (Engl.)
Canada (Engl.)
Canada (Engl.)
Canada (Engl.)
Canada (Engl.)
Canada (Engl.)
Canada (Engl.)
uanaaa ^iiingi.)
Canada (Engl.)
Canada (Engl.)
Canada (Engl.)
Canada (Engl.)
Canada (Engl.)
Canada (Engl.)
Canada (Engl.)
Canada (Engl.)
Canada (Engl.)
Canada (Engl.)
Canada (Engl.)
Canada (Engl.)
Totals
io6
INTERMARRIAGE IN NEW YORK CITY
[258
C3 1^ ^ C5 P^
£3 ^ *3 rh fe
PJ3I
£3 pc, rs r5 fo
OC
<N
eo
<N
eo
c*
10 -4 tH (M rH rH rH
n
S
X
U
T
^
J
)
1
1
,1
1
1
J
1
J
c
1
c
•J
1
t
•1
e
•J
i
259]
STATISTICAL APPENDIX
107
j
3rd Gen.
(NBNP)
with
3rd Gen.
(NBNP)
3rd Gen.
(NBNP)
with
2nd Gen.
(NBFP)
2nd Gen.
(NBFP)
with
3rd Gen.
(NBNP)
2nd Gen.
(NBFP)
with
2nd Gen.
(NBFP)
3rd Gen.
(NBNP)
with
1st Gen.
(FBFP)
1st Gen.
(FBFP)
with
3rd Gen.
(NBNP)
2nd Gen.
(NBFP)
with
1st Gen.
(FBFP)
1st Gen.
(FBFP)
with
2nd Gen.
(NBFP)
1st Gen.
(FBFP)
with
1st Gen.
(FBFP)
1
1
1
1
C^ .1 tM
^gj s
• -^n •»
J : : :
• • •
• 05 0>
•■ ■
IN;
: : :
c4 : : :
(M r-l ^ e
M . (O
Cuba (Col.)
D.W.I. (Col.)
Italy (North)
United States (Col.)
Cuba (Col.)
Cuba (Col.)
Cuba (Col.)
- 1
16
eo-He<jc<i<Mc«soOT-<<N
tOlM^(N(MCO^ ^
M ; M : : ;
CO ■
Oil . . . rt . . (o
2
T-l ■ • . rH • • 10
1 '.'.'.'.' '^ '*'. '.
CO ..... . 00
<Mt-IC<I(MC^i-1i-i^.-H
:«-<^ :«^ ^
Cuba (Span.)
Belgium
Canada (Engl.)
England
Finland
France
Germany
Germany (South)
Holland
Ireland
Italy
Italy (South)
Porto Rico (Spant)
Scotland
Spain ^
Venezuela (Span.)
Cuba (Span.)
Cuba (Span.)
Cuba (Span.)
Cuba (Span.)
Cuba (Span.)
Cuba (Span.)
Cuba (Span.)
Cuba (Span.)
Cuba (Span.)
Uuba(Span.)
Cuba (Span.)
Cuba (Span.)
Cuba (Span.)
Cuba (Span.)
Cuba (Span.)
Cuba (Span.)
Totals
io8
INTERMARRIAGE IN NEW YORK CITY
[260
CM -— CO -— ^
5^
C n,
C3 fe
to fe
00 CO Tj* 00
CO O U5 (M :
-H TtC O U3 ■* Cvl
cofO(Me-i-i(Ma>»-'5
QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ
s
-*
CO
f:
^ CM
eo
8
«
00
1
ciS"^
S
i
1
.2
1
c
1
■3
1
1
c
c
c
C
1
26l]
STATISTICAL APPENDIX
109
Is
CO ^^ <>) ^ —
sE'
CO
_ W -g _, P3
Is Is
2«
SPh
^ go.
CO Eeh
^5-g
!H '^ m fe
-*< 00 ^ ec
o^t-egxt.
CC ^ -H T
■H 00
gg-^ss-
-ieo<Meot~o><Mto
If? '"'
M ^ to eo «o
-4-
:
Jg-«-<^ :
. Tji .
CVJ CO
:-^S-^* :
IM
. ^ M --H
. . (M t-l •
^^ 1-1
■* M
£> CO
CO ■* •
^g^
■ T-l CO • •
jl JS^"' :
«o • 1
-1 <M T-1
<M CO
<M •
CO • t^ »
I • C^ -1-1
• 00
-^J§g :
05 CO >-l
■ <M CO CO U5 ^ t^ r
-1 . OJ »H TtH
: 4:
St3E
.2.2.
■ -i
ill
~e3 ^5
H
3 Oi
i
J3
.2
a
i
St
s i
i 1
1
1
>>
B
a •
00
II
1
1
1
1
8 : n
Italy South)
Norway
Rumania (Jew)
Russia (Jew)
11
WW
ii-
d W(i:
3 73 T3
3 a a
ill
T3 -d 7
ii
1
If:
1
1
c
s
-0 -a
f J
WW
it
WW
73
J
w
J
1
iiii
England
England
England
England
no
INTERMARRIAGE IN NEW YORK CITY
[262
s
1
3rd Gen.
(NBNP)
with
3rd Gen.
(NBNP)
3rd Gen.
(NBNP)
with
2nd Gen.
(NBFP)
2nd Gen.
(NBFP)
with
3rd Gen.
(NBNP)
2nd Gen.
(NBFP)
with
2nd Gen.
(NBFP)
3rd Gen.
(NBNP)
with
Ist Gen.
(FBFP)
1st Gen.
(FBFP)
with
3rd Gen.
(NBNP)
2nd Gen.
(NBFP)
with
1st Gen.
(FBFP)
1st Gen.
(FBFP)
with
2nd Gen.
(NBFP)
1st Gen.
(FBFP)
with
Ist Gen.
(FBFP)
i
1
a
i
M
s
ec
IN
ift
t-
1
:
"3
t^ CD (M
s
1
I
z
3
(M
«« -H ^
1
«o
CO r-( rt
§
ec «o CI t^ t^ eo
s
I
1
1
I
\
i.
■III
1
i
1
'i
1
'1
]
1
"1
1
i
)
\
S-"
II
^&-
ca.iS^tjisejaeSeSli'oaSSaS
-On3-OT3T3-OT3T3-0'0'0'T3-0-0
aces
^ (^ ^ cS
a a a o
'3'3^'3'3^'q[3.o'3 a a a s
CO
»-< CJ
UJ
Z o-
!
■(M
s 3 3 1'
S § g 8 S
§ § § § §
263]
STATISTICAL APPENDIX
ej -w- CO -— •
a f^ 'So t^
5S <gS
gpL,
&j On.
00 fe '^ CO [^
Tf «5 ^ .^ r-t
O ^ CO "-^ OC
00 <M eo t»
III
O CO r-H 05 1-1 C^
C0>— l»OCOCO<:DOCOr-4
:Sa
vi >? >> >"
-a -a ^-^
8gS§gg8ggSSS88S§88SSSS8SSS
08ra^03cQ^^^^^c3AcS^^c303aS^c3^^wn«^
112
INTERMARRIAGE IN NEW YORK CITY
[264
a ^ .^ o ^
<r» U5 "-H t^
.-H QO M CO O
<riust^cst~>oecic<»(M<-i^'
'li°i
ii*ii
PQ -c __^ m
is
oil
" P ■? -5 9
CM ^-^
lofe
C3 5! -f O fe
0^^^<i«tiPQpaoooQH&HfaoaaMii!aAi^.:^i:M^CMa.cig?cg;p
>>>.>>>>>.
gggggg|gggagg|||gg|sii||g|g _
iOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
265]
STATISTICAL APPENDIX
113
5
rn ;z; 73 £3 &H
eg 3 fe
5&H
C3 fe
IS
qt< 'tS £3 Z
fe ■5 a f^
5Ph ^ SPh
£3 fe 't3 £3 PtH
cc
C3
O
a> V a>
000
00
Cvl ^ -^ CO
ecc<ic><«5ooeoeort<i«e»90>
»o
>■
1
?3
M
00
CO
eC<N(Mrt.-tC>«eO<M(N50'
ca ec cvi •* c* (3>
W TO 2 "*~^ TO C3
11
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOQOcD
114
INTERMARRIAGE IN NEW YORK CITY
[266
3
1
3rd Gen.
(NBNP)
with
3rd Gen.
(NBNP)
3rd Gen.
(NBNP)
with
2nd Gen.
(NBFP)
2nd Gen.
(NBFP)
with
3rd Gen.
(NBNP)
2nd Gen.
(NBFP)
with
2nd Gen.
(NBFP)
3rd Gen.
(NBNP)
with
1st Gen.
(FBFP)
1st Gen.
(FBFP)
with
3rd Gen.
(NBNP)
2nd Gen.
(NBFP)
with
1st Gen.
(FBFP)
1st Gen.
(FBFP)
with
2nd Gen.
(NBFP)
1st Gen.
(FBFP)
with
Ist Gen.
(FBFP)
Eh
§
i
1
<
c<
5
i«-
•<»< »-i
"5
00
%
1
1
\
I
W
i
s
osoeo«OMC<i(M<Neoeoc«se<«
-^ I
<
oc
u
o
J.
•
»c
(M -H
CO
<N
S
I
>
I
c^
o>
eo ec
CO
(M <M
!S
_^gco^<^.c.<Nc.^>cc-.^^c.J;5-gg<^,t^^-o«5-H
S
3
3-1
1
J
5.S
'I
>
1
i
,4
1
5d:
J
1
c
■1
I
[£
i
>
J
i
•1
I
J
4
c
1
>
rj
i rr
) r/
5 rr
i r/-
rr
> rr
5 r/-
rr
)r^
)r/-
J rr
rr
rr
>rr
TA
r/-
irr
tr
w
oc
rr
rr
r/-
r/-
'
oooooooooooooooooc
\
c
3C
i s
'1
•> >
i
cS
1
267]
STATISTICAL APPENDIX
115
^S
Q pt, rs ^ pc(
«-l « 10 05 Tt< «
CO '^ t-H eo <M «o
Ui
Ul
.-< 10 »0 Tj(
1-1 T-H fH <N O CO 00
CO T-H • CO M >o
CJ •+:> .^^ -i^ -1^ ^ ^ R p-3
t 3 13 3 p Sa S
iz; cQ
a _^ M bp bC M S
S' g s s S "o 3
^'^-' eS 03
3P3iDcSe4e9033Sfe5h?
8 S
ii6
INTERMARRIAGE IN NEW YORK CITY
[268
I
1
2
3rd Gen.
(NBNP)
with
3rd Gen.
( NBNP)
3rd Gen.
(NBNP)
with
2nd Gen.
(NBFP)
2nd Gen.
(NBFP)
with
3rd Gen.
(NBNP)
2nd Gen.
(NBFP)
with
2nd Gen.
(NBFP)
3rd Gen.
(NBNP)
with
1st Gen.
(FBFP)
1st Gen.
(FBFP)
with
3rd Gen.
(NBNP)
2nd Gen.
(NBFP)
with
1st Gen.
(FBFP)
1st Gen.
(FBFP)
with
2nd Gen.
(NBFP)
1st Gen.
(FBFP)
with
1st Gen.
(FBFP)
i
85
1
Si5
fc
S
JO^.
1 CO CV
< c-
c
s-
<£.
c
c^
er
t>
c^
S
_ CO -H 10
•^
CO
i
<
IM
eq rt
CO
S '*'
t^
00
CO ^ T-c
J5
S"^
CO
.H^,-H(M05rH^-HC0(MO
^^«^
<£
1
i
1
a
■5
3
1
5
i
1
1
S
1
I
a
i
1
>
1
1
i
1
>
2
1
i
i
.S3
1
^
c
1
1
1
J
3
J
1
1
1
1
1
t
fr
1
1
"c
w
1
1
tr
J
1
n
!x
1
•
:
:
1
i
z
r
t^ M <o OJ
b eS eS eS
^ OQ CQ QQ
iiii
oaoo
^^
bC hB iaO bO
c a B c
3 3 3 P
M S m n
269]
STATISTICAL APPENDIX
117
CM ~-^ (M '—'
3 fe .^ O ^
5 Q. On.
>o us o> t»-
us CO C^ "-i
^---s
O us Oi t^
lis
III
PQ (z^ P^
illii
i § I a I
<M l-H r-l
ii
g 8 I 5 5
hit CQ CC CQ CQ
aaaaaaaaaaaaa
0000000000000
3 3 .3 .3
3 .3 3 .3 ,3 ,
HMMMmtiHMMKnMPHM
^ e<i »-i «c (M c<i
M ^ a
5e.Om
lii
a^oHowwi^
^
^tg
9g
WW w.w,g,w wo
wwwwwwww
<o
i
>- «»
1
I 00 cv
1
III
W <5 <!
w n w
ii8
INTERMARRIAGE IN NEW YORK CITY
[270
- « -g z; cQ
1^
gia.
'2;
iHeDeo<Mi-ii««T*<
»- ~-^ <M
1 OJ p^
!i =
CO (M
I to C4
•-5 P^
o fe 3
O
1.2
•c S
MMmOTSSSmMMOT
bbbb
bO bfi txo bO bO
«o o> c<j o
2g^
r
«COSCO00«OCO-«»(^
■0 r- » •
<^^ :
^H'^IMIM-^t-^OOOC^ir^
Oi Oi CO
00
-^-•g
0«-H
ells
M •<*< eo
S^SS
II
g
^
o 2
lllllullllllll
a a a o aqaaaaaaaaaa
'a3'fl3'a3'a3«9J<uii'a>a>ai<i><u4>a>«
271]
STATISTICAL APPENDIX
119
|g's-sg
CO '-^ (M —
■gg
C<l 00 -"ll «0 M (M
§
(M
10
<M
00
§
•*
ij
s
(M
N
CM
i
(M
C4
■>*<
U5
^^
ooT-HOOcoeoi-iOJi-it^
■* •
i
1
v
(>» 1-1 -tjt 10
^^
CO
CO
§
I
U5
05 <M «0
<M rl i-H .
§
-*(M(Mi-H^00lCl^'-lO5
ig-^g
CO
CO ■
2
•
u
3 E
311
ii
H
ii
3!i
•2
•> >
n
ii
;1
H P:
i c
11
h
1
2 cc
■1
.1
n
2 a
3 g
--
i
I
1
1
2i
-J
3 T.
1 1
2 J
h
1
3 T
H
i t
fj
3 t;
3 T.
n
3 T
3 1
3 -?
u
3 T
3^
ij
3 1
IJ
3 T
1 f
il
i no
H
S^^^^ :
i^
i
H IM
t^ CO 00 -"tl O I-H
3i|i
c^ ^ cd flS
■3 § § § B'a3
^ <tj <! <tj <j pq
^53^^-2
120
INTERMARRIAGE IN NEW YORK CITY
[272
CO ~— - (M ■—
1^: ^^^
CM
C<1 ■
£3 Z •::j riT ft,
if m -g ^ PQ
llili
rg Cjh ^ r3 (^
" m -g ^ m
>0 Pfl
CO
5§
C<l
s
3
00
g
00
co
IM
CO
;5
S
"5
<N
?;
'"'
•<*
CO
■rt
CO
'"'
>o
^
«■
<M >-(
CO ^
«0 >0 (M CO
■*
-^s:
^ 00 ^ «o
CO
s
\
^ «5
■<»< «0 (M
CI l-H
g
I
- 00
«0 ^ -H t^
C<l
-^s
r-< .-1 •* »-C t>. (M
g
CO
--2-
^T-l«S^T-t(MCO(N«»00«OrHeO
00 00 Tl r^ CM —1
i
1
ei.
c
c
^2
*
1
-1
1
1
t:
1
P
>§
1
C
J
■1
1
■> >
J
■
\
c
1
1
"I
tc
'1
eg
1
i
1
1
.s
cr
1
1
1
'1
1
c
J
c
J
a:
1
a:
1
_fc
ii
iJ
[^
j «
ll
i
'1
n
1-
'1
'•«
?3
i
i
^1
■->
i
i
i
1 >
1 >
1
■>_>
"
1
273]
STATISTICAL APPENDIX
121
1
SP^
12; ■« o '^
CO
CM "^-^ CO -— ^
C5 fe
CM ^^
1%
<
P3
g_...._.^..
^^^S'**'^^'^^'" 1
; : ; : : ; i ; : : ; 1 ':
:::::::::::! :
;";-;;;;;;; «
:::::::::: -^ 1 -
; : : : ; : i i i i I
1 : : i-" : : :^ : :=«
: : :^'« ] [ I I [ \ «
CO
-l(MC<>>OO0COr-H<M<M(M p
Italy (N.)
Austria (Germ.)
Austria (Jew)
Austria (Ital.)
Austria (Pol.)
Belgium
Canada (Engl.)
Cuba (Span.)
England
Finland
France
Germany
Germany (JMorth)
Germany (South)
Hungary (SI.)
Ireland
Italy (South)
Russia (Jew)
Russia (Pol.)
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland (Ital.)
United States (Jew)
iiiiiiilllll
S^ 1^ ;^ izi ;^ •^ ;^ Iz; Izi 12; Izj 1
illiliiilii ^
122
INTERMARRIAGE IN NEW YORK CITY
[274
IS
co5
gPM gpn
— W -S 11 pQ
es4 w CO ^^
C3 fe 5 C5 f^
C 04
cQ "c _i pa
"85 fe •* a Jz;
S Ph - g Ph
Cjj fe :S r5 pR
CO (»( 00 fa
ei
CO
ec
Cf.
^
•* <M CO
c^
00
""
5
•^
CO
>*
M
es»
^
•*
CO
(M
^
1
5
CO
C* to T-t ^ -H eo
^
^0(M-.0
§
<M
CO
(M
t^t^^j_,^CS,<M(N00O2g«O^
.0 -H .M
(N Tl
i
a
1
1
ll
<
J
.2
I
<
PC
1
1
t:
"b
1
1
E
C
*-
i
a
C
e
I
i
1
1
^1
1
1
p:
1
1
J
1
1
1
1
-<-
J
]
1
1
3
rr
J
i
J/-
rr
rr
rr
rr
rr
rr
rr
rr
rr
nr
rr
r/"
rr
Vr
rr
K
rr
rr
w
rr
rr
rr
rr
\7
^^
\r
ir
rr
rr
1
llllllllllllll
1
i
■llllllllllllll
275]
STATISTICAL APPENDIX
123
if
CO P^
CO G- CO
esj ^— eo ^-'
O fe ^ C5 f=<
<M
00'-l^(N^rHeO«<l
CM "— ' '-H ^--
<S £s ."^ '^ ^
a fe .-s o Si
^6
C.S2SSa>«og
13 ^
§,lao.S.§.o,i.o.o,ai.o.a
»H <M (M N CO <N »-
^U,CO^-H 5;
• • • • • •
i : i ; M M
q:
w :::::::
8 i M : i M
X
lU . . . . ^ ^ .
S : : : :
« ; : : ; i
• (M • ■ • «qp
T-t <M (M (M <M t-H ,-(
T-H <N CO ^ rt OS
Austria (Pol.)
Cuba (Span.)
France
Scotland
Mexico (Span.)
Germany
Germany (North)
Germany (South)
Ireland
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland (Germ.)
Mexico (Span.)
Mexico (Span.)
Mexico (Span.)
Mexico (Span.)
Mexico (Span.)
Mexico (Span.)
Mexico (Span.)
Mexico (Span.)
Mexico (Span.)
Mexico (Span.)
Mexico (Span.)
Mexico (Span.)
Totals
124
INTERMARRIAGE IN NEW YORK CITY
[276
i
3
3rd Gen.
(NBNP)
with
3rd Gen.
(NBNP)
3rd Gen.
(NBNP)
with
2nd Gen.
(NBFP)
2nd Gen.
(NBFP)
with
3rd Gen.
(NBNP)
2nd Gen.
(NBFP)
with
2nd Gen.
(NBFP)
3rd Gen.
(NBNP)
with
1st Gen.
(FBFP)
1st Gen.
(FBFP)
with
3rd Gen.
(NBNP)
2nd Gen.
(NBFP)
with
1st Gen.
(FBFP)
1st Gen.
(FBFP)
with
2nd Gen.
(NBFP)
1st Gen.
(FBFP)
with
1st Gen.
(FBFP)
3
<
§
Jz;
1
a
^
eo 1-
i<N'xt<wc<»-«nooo50e<i«oeo«-
■< <M 00 r-
,<>,«
§
:
:
c^
<N
10
>
§
<M
1
<S <^>
r-l lO
(M
00
i
(MeOIMC^i-Ht^t^O
•^ CO 1-1 •-< e^
-^^
i
1
i
e
■|
<
<
i
1
<
1
1 ^
B —
^
1
•1
1
c
%
1
>
i
1
1
>
1
2
>
j
1
>
>
iz;
i
1
5I
^
1
i
1
il
>,
^
1
i
1
1
51
r
1
1
2
s
c
c
S
.
^ i-H ec
^ O 4> O
5 3 3 3 oj P a
CL, -S3 <J ^ P3 O O I
a a a a
ooooooop
UUUUUUUO
ooSSSoSo
Ph(LiPhPhPhPhPhPs
277]
STATISTICAL APPENDIX
125
?g5-sg
a P^ "5
,-^ ^ cs fe
Q ;Z, ^ rK pEH
CO "S 03
5 Ph
1^
CO fe
II
CO P^
1 <u P
CI-
(M
>c
IN
?
<M
M
1
s
;
1
u
1
C^l
r~
"
<M CO <M T-H i-H ^
Si
1
1
>
'1
1
1
>
1
1
1
1
^
^
!
g
C
1
J
1
1
1
1
i
£
.
in
1
<M
(N
10
(M
t
:
CJ
^
1
k
<M
<M
<M
i-< <M
rH CO <M •-<
evi
1
"1
1
1
1
1
1
>
1
>
'I
:
Is
1
■I
•1
1
•1
1
,1
1
.1
1
'1
.1
1
,1
1
'1
1
■
\
to
<M
?:
:
<
CO
CM
jg^ ^<M
a>
(X
I
1
i
•1
•1
1
(X
1
^
126
INTERMARRIAGE IN NEW YORK CITY
[278
15
c Cu
a CLi
P3
55 " t.'z,
«■?
P5
CM "-^ CO
m 'E _ OQ
•?::
V>^, a !z;
5 Dj g n .
ec
«
3
ec
»>
ec
ec
p;
i
,
:
:
(M
«
:
3
:
<
3
CM
1 ■^
»o ^ -^
r>-
g--
1
»H .-< CO
i
Z
1
-<
<
1
C
1
j:
1
g
1
,5
1
1
J
1
i
1
:
i
1
1
J
1
1
J
1
J
.2
1
I
c
1
(5
i
i
1
1
J
1
1
w
t>
Cj
\
'■■
<
<M ^ ,-1 l>.
•5
.2
is
a
■l
;
6
8
.3
eg
^
;
CO CO C<l -^
ill
llll
llll
-O TJ T3 73
llll
03 CQ CC OQ
279]
STATISTICAL APPENDIX
127
a ^ .-5 o ^
1^
C>4
_ PQ -S _, PQ
S&!^ g^
rg » is rK fa,
S s ■? S P
I
l|.fii
2g
-^r,«
C3 Ph ts f-K p!i(
- « •? 2 r«
<M »
.jH^,C,^-HO>g««5.
-1 e<i CO T
■H CO <M »-l .-H ■* .
?3
■^-§5=:«' 1
: ""^ • t>
■ • T-4 C» M .
:g-
I . .-H M •
g
,0
V
2
f5
<M ^ -i^
• rl (M
!M •
^
■ rt CO _•
5
(M ;'-!'-
;""« :
1-1 T-H rl <M
j;;--
• (M •>*< IM
CM
-^23 i-^g
7-H ■* GO •
ec •
2 :
rt rt eo
^^^CC
§
1
1
«
i
Canada (French)
Denmark
England
1
■B
li
11
li
i
ii
Italy (North)
Italy (South)
Norway
Russia (Pol.)
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland (Germ )
Wales
j
i
1
Ill
i
1
II
J
II
II
Scotland
Scotland
Scotland
Scotland
Scotland
Scotland
Scotland
Scotland
i
128
INTERMARRIAGE IN NEW YORK CITY
[280
1
s
1
3rd Gen.
(NBNP)
with
3rd Gen.
(NBNP)
3rd Gen.
(NBNP)
with
2nd Gen.
(NBFP)
2nd Gen.
(NBFP)
with
3rd Gen.
(NBNP)
2nd Gen.
(NBFP)
with
2nd Gen.
(NBFP)
3rd Gen.
(NBNP)
with
Ist Gen.
(FBFP)
1st Gen.
(FBFP)
with
3rd Gen.
(NBNP)
2nd Gen.
(NBFP)
with
Ist Gen.
(FBFP)
Ist Gen.
(FBFP)
with
2nd Gen.
(NBFP)
1st Gen.
(FBFP)
with
1st Gen.
(FBFP)
i
1
S5
•<
C
(N
Cq C4 U3
00 e>» 00 eo
t»
lO (M
CO
N
i
(M rH
00
Z
5 "^
eo »-t
eo-H^
M
i^
<MC^»0<-lt^C^-*'-<'-l<MW>'-<'-''-''-<«
1
c
I
§
J.—
1
<
i
I
•<
1
i
i
c:
i
t
1
J
>
1
c
2
1
c
i
1
1
■i
1
^i
c
D i
L
g
1
,
_,
1
4
'J
ii
■I
.J
c
^J
^J
;i
^1
^1
4
C
^J
^j
^1
4.
^1
'J
•J
C
■J
4
c
;
28l
STATISTICAL APPENDIX
129
I
CO -^ c^ ^-
S?v
CM '
eo
-*t-*t~^^ao^r-i>o<x5
1
— ■— - C5 — '
53 f h »
P "5 2 «
IM(MC0(Mr^t^«OO>i-lt^C0
^ « o O
CO o ^ »-H
^ s „ „
03 3 O 3
gi -ffi .S^ S
«
1 c
5 CO
(M
i-
2
J,
g^co^
I
<
j
i
<!
-a
•^
•^
JJJJ
a? oS ^ &
•g -g -g -g
02 CQ CQ 02
I30
INTERMARRIAGE IN NEW YORK CITY
[282
55
2
1
3rd Gen.
(NBNP)
with
3rd Gen.
(NBNP)
3rd Gen.
(NBNP)
with
2nd Gen.
(NBFP)
2nd Gen.
(NBFP)
with
3rd Gen.
(NBNP)
2nd Gen.
(NBFP)
with
2nd Gen.
(NBFP)
3rd Gen.
(NBNP)
with
1st Gen.
(FBFP)
1st Gen.
(FBFP)
with
3rd Gen.
(NBNP)
2nd Gen.
(NBFP)
with
1st Gen.
(FBFP)
1st Gen.
(FBFP)
with
2nd Gen.
(NBFP)
1st Gen.
(FBFP)
with
1st Gen.
(FBFP)
1
is
-<
CO
(M
,00
•«i<
CO
S'^'S
C<I
■* CO
CA
i
:
^0--
0» ^ -H
^
(T* rt CO
CO
^
CO
S
^
C<5 -H
i
1
;2
:l
3 «
c
I
1
h
1
5
■ 2
:l
i
3C
3C
'J
i
^
>
1
e
1
:]
••1
1
5
S3 S
oc.
-0 -t:
Jj
30pC
Switzerland (Germ.) .
Switzerland (Germ.).
Switzerland (Germ.).
Switzerland (Germ.).
Switzerland (Germ.).
Switzerland (Germ.).
Switzerland (Germ.) .
Switzerland (Germ.) .
Switzerland (Germ.) .
Switzerland (Germ.).
Switzerland (Germ.).
Switzerland (Germ.).
Switzerland (Germ.) .
Switzerland (Germ.).
Switzerland (Germ.) .
1
n
3 -t:
1 S
n
5 cr
3 t:
il
CO
C<J
eo
f^
UJ
Lb
a
z
<
_i
t
T
CO
CO
■» ^ ^ -H <M eo
^
1
1
1
a
T
1
^
1
c
c-
J
C
1
_
^
I
It
1
a
a
"2
1 s
(
■£
1
i
283]
STATISTICAL APPENDIX
131
CM '— eo ^^
_ M •£ _, pq
C3 ^ ^ r^s fe
i^ cQ -s 2 m
?S*5g
t* '-
■1 (M t>. ^
00
i
z
CO
50 ^
« ^
^
1
02
i
1
1
2
1
1
1
i
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
02
i
-S
02
i
Hg^.
g
:
>
CM
"
s
1
1
03
1
C
3
\
_o
02
1
i
fH T-l (M 10 (M IX <M
t-l i-l US IM 10 (N
S
ii-iyi§gili?l-s^
33'^'3-c^2S2§-a3'3gg,-s
^<t)peimpQtxifaOoahi^>t;;g^tg
132
INTERMARRIAGE IN NEW YORK CITY
[284
1
1
3rd Gen.
(NBNP)
with
3rd Gen.
(NBNP)
3rd Gen.
(NBNP)
with
2nd Gen.
(NBFP)
2nd Gen.
(NBFP)
with
3rd Gen.
(NBNP)-
2nd Gen.
(NBFP)
with
2nd Gen.
(NBFP)
3rd Gen.
( NBNP)
with
Ist Gen.
(FBFP)
1st Gen.
(FBFP)
with
3rd Gen.
(NBNP)
2nd Gen.
(NBFP)
with
1st Gen.
(FBFP)
1st Gen.
(FBFP)
with
2nd Gen.
(NBFP)
Ist Gen.
(FBFP)
with
1st Gen.
(FBFP)
13
1
55
<
z
§55^^*°^
s^^g-
?5|
-
oc
^s
f.
p-
es
SJ:
«
oc
t--
tN
5
i
§22?;-
§2-^5-«SS|2S--g-^-
•
g cS S g; '^ « S S 2 S S
i::5g«:5:s
"s-'-si^as
S-"
£
^
1
c
1
i
<
1
-<
1
<
1
p:
1
1
PC
i
1
i
•1
1
1
c
1
.1
>
i
a
1
c
3
1
i
1
1
1
I
i
t
te
■I
1
3
1
1
1
1
a
1
c
1
%
i
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
-g
•3
p
i
1
1
p
1
•I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
•J
1
a;
1
P
1
p
1
p
1
zc
-c
1
1
.2
cc
1
•J
1
CO
1
1
i
1
cc
1
■s
p
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
.1
c
p
1
.1
n
P
1
1
1
P
1
p
1
1
•a
p
1
•a
p
i
1
2?5]
STATISTICAL APPENDIX
133
CO •>-^ !-(-—'
o ^ .^ o ^
a&-5,
SS'
c<t <y> t^ <s>
Is
5 J
CQ 02 '
_S 1 .2 1 1 I J
llJ^lllllSggJl
iiiiiiiiiiiiii
MCQOQCQCQCMCQCnMMiXiOQCCOQ
ii il 'J 1 ii '3 'a '3 '3 '3 'a "a "3 "2
» CO tc
»o -
< CO rH ir
(N
< to ^
'
• (N CO <M
.CO(N
• rH .1
;^COCO-HCC^
CO
i
t
9
1
1
1
j
1
i
1
1
T3
J
1
>.
1
1
w
i
1
i
1
i
p
i
i
a
P
s
1
p
1
CO
1
1
i
02
P
1
1
1
•3
p
i
1
02
1
•a
P
i
s
02
■a
p
1
1
02
•a
p
i
02
1
g
i
1
1
i
1
i
1
p
134
INTERMARRIAGE IN NEW YORK CITY
[286
s
3rd Gen.
(NBNP)
with
3rd Gen.
(NBNP)
3rd Gen.
(NBNP)
with
2nd Gen.
(NBFP)
2nd Gen.
(NBFP)
with
3rd Gen.
(NBNP)
2nd Gen.
(NBFP)
with
2nd Gen.
(NBFP)
3rd Gen.
(NBNP)
with
Ist Gen.
(FBFP)
1st Gen.
(FBFP)
with
3rd Gen.
(NBNP)
2nd Gen.
(NBFP)
with
1st Gen.
(FBFP)
1st Gen.
(FBFP)
with
2nd Gen.
(NBFP)
1st Gen.
(FBFP)
with
1st Gen.
(FBFP)
1
<
^
^
r
N,
&
1
CO
t>
i
i
s
1
i
1
1
1
«^^^^C0.
---i::^-^ «
'.'.'.'.'.'.
: : : : : :
CO . . . N lO
: : : :
: : • : "" " •
">
rnn-
1 . ^ . . «c
'« e^ • • ■ . <N
. . ui ■ • a>
co^^^o,^
• 1-1 <* Tjt 1-1 CO
Wales
Austria (Germ.)
Austria (Jew)
Canada (Engl.)
England
Germany
Hungary (Jew)
Ireland
Scotland
Sweden
Illllll
Wales
Wales
Wales
Wales
Totals
•^ '-f c^ ui a> eo
T-l r-t IM ..^ 00 CQ
Hi
ill i illtsl
^fc^fc^^S^^fc
'B 'B B B B B B B B B
287]
STATISTICAL APPENDIX
135
^ PQ -g ^ cq
CO ^ CO ^— •
C3 P=H ^^ C5 (^
I:pq-c^pq
^g'^'^i"
'^^g--
'§s
^
«g
s
C4 <3>
CO
-^§3
c^r^^
i
1
;
s
1
rl «0
11 t>.
^
3
<
to rH CO «0 ^
ej
»1-AUSTF
71
^
-2g
%
-' CO g <N ^ 00
CO rf< «D
SS5
i
>■
1
1
2
>
9
1
1
i
1
-c
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
•3
P
\
1
1
5
1
<
1
1
<
1
<
1
1
S3
-a
=
1
1
1
<1
1
<
1
1
1
<
1
<
i
eo CO —
5
3
<
00
CO CO
a»
1
m
1
1
1
S
t
1
1
t2
1
•
:
1
1
1
1
1
IS
1
_5
1
J
J
CO eo eo <M
Tj* eo eo ;
1
a
eo
r"
ss
<N
'5
1
9
3
<
3
1
J
1
1
1
1
9
"5
3
136
INTERMARRIAGE IN NEW YORK CITY
[288
."S 5^ •« rlJ 5^
a S .t3 o S
5|:
io ^
^ go.
rg pE< :t3 rh fe
z « -g 2 p
5^ =
-S-
'S-
esi
5
S :
w
Si---
15
1
:
K
S
'
Q
Z
(M
t^
CO
2s-
z
111
J,
f-< eo 1-1
fe
Ui U3 C^ "^^
S
s
1
1
1
1
1
t
T
§
>
1
1
1
i
s
1
1
1&&&S.S.S,
&s
1
1
1
J
1
a
S
1
1
1
1
J
1
■g
£
1
t
1
J
1
t
1
1
1
< 1-
H «g -* <M -
OB
^
,^w
«c
«0-H
. °*
94
«
■*
V
»-i '-I «
"
■* <N
I-
eo
CO
■0
1
i
1
1
1
<3
1
1
1
1
1
1
(X
J
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
►3
1
1
1
1
s
1
1
s
1
1
1
i
o c« r» « (N 1-1
z ;^
<
oc
S "S "S n B o
« 3 3 08 08 «
^^ ^ ^ » ^ ^
« « « a> » a>
>>>.>.>.>.
289]
STATISTICAL APPENDIX
137
'I'll
S&! - gpH
a g .^ o (^
pq
on •- pq
?S
gpH
50H
1^
'^ to fe
«o ft,
12
t^3jrjeoeoeo^O<Noo<MooiM
;;;;;;! ;-S «
^SSS^^-'S :2:^S; :*«|
668
jMMMMnn
1 \\\\\\\\\\\\\
^i^MMiMMN
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \'"^ s
>- '• '•
; ! ! M i i'^ ! ! ^
^-H(M«s-* • ;;CO -JO ■ -CO
Ui ::::;:
147
g 10 -H . ^ <N <M . (M . »g :<»^
; M : : r : : ; §
England
England (Jew)......'.!!!!!!!!
France (Jew)
Germany
Germany (South)
Holland
Hungary (Hung.)
Ireland
Italy
Hungary (Jew)
Norway
Rumania (Jew)
Russia (Jew)
Scotland
Scotland (Jew)
Spain
Sweden
Sweden (Jew)
Switzerland (Germ.)
Switzerland (Jew)
Turkey ^Jew)
United States
United States (Jew)
Germany (Jew)
Germany (Jew)
Germany (Jew)
Germany (Jew)
Germany (Jew)
Germany (Jew)
Germany (Jew)
Germany (Jew)
Germany (Jew)
Germany (Jew)
Germany (Jew)
Germany (Jew)
Germany (Jew)
Germany (Jew)
Germany (Jew)
Germany (Jew)
Germany (Jew)
Germany (Jew)
Germany (Jew)
Germany (Jew)
Germany (Jew)
Germany (Jew)
Germany (Jew)
Totals
«, .
i
3
Q ^
Z
I ^ 0)
^,¥
ill lis,
S !3 & & !
T3 -O T3 -T3 XJ TJ
.3^ ^ .3 ^ ^
"o "o o "o o o
138
INTERMARRIAGE IN NEW YORK CITY
[290
15
C3 (*< 5 C5 !*<
iS^sS
?^g
^
■*
^
"
CM
«
M
1 '■
•S •
eo
TO
z •
eo 1-*
00
3"
e>
8
1
•-
J
1
P
3d
ii
5D
I
n
1
1;:
h
r
1 1
<
3.!:
3 T
1
^
S
•H
»H
Tj»eo-^cflt^c»oo«ec
SSS^'
to
t-
-gj
S3
§13 :
Ct Cd ^
S§ :
"S ;
^
S
3
"5
S
s
z
»H
Ui .
-a- :
g
ccg :
s-
K
P
^e^«c*.H
sss .
1
1
1
i
'1
3 T
a 1
M
u
n
a 1
3C
J
n
i !
a
'A
jp
h
1
J
I
'1.
1
1
'J
i
1
■j
^1
Is
II
5t3
3S
If
H
1
t3
U
>>
1
3
1
3
U
ii
H
4ti
it
3
It:
s
3 1
u
h
It
ii
u
u
n
3ti
3H
1
■> i
Id
) to
§
1
291
STATISTICAL APPENDIX
139
m
H
.
r.^
:S
r^l
Y^.
■^
11
^
IE
■5
^g
o> eon o»-i»-ic<»e<i»He»oot~»-i«s»ooc»
5S c^S
a fe .■§ o ^
<
z
<
3
CC <o to
= Ph - gpH
S§
s.s^^.
if-l(Mt»C<««0»C<Ni-l
?,-&
a 2-E c c-g
^ ^ OQ 00
Qj ^ (u a>
'i'l'i'i'i
iiiiilliiiigggg
10 • ■*
— ^ w ^ ^
•i '5 'S
J § S
A 'o5 c3 c6
I40
INTERMARRIAGE IN NEW YORK CITY
ig2
ss
ig-^^
CV4 ^ CO -—
•5 S ^ -5 e
C3 Z tS cs Cm
go.
CO ^
IS
g£"
So;
o^ecqrtMi— ^i-H
OOW
_ _ ^^ ■— CQ OQ
I ■§ If I -g J -a -a
Iz; fi p; g; jij pg ^ cgtg ro m ^ p ^
aii|i|||§||||||||||||
293]
STATISTICAL APPENDIX
141
CO -^ <M ^-'
^ m -g ;^ m
P3
«3 ^ •"§ ^ ^
?g^:Hg
fa
CO ^-^ 1-1 ■— '
C3 fa
z: « ^ T3 £
^fa '^ fl js
O fe .^ O fe
s-
(^
rft c;
'-
\
J
:
1
oc
3
l
c^
CO
gco---
i-H '♦f <M
>
1
£
PC
"9
J
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
P
1
1
1
1
9
(3
93
•3
"?
5
'R
^
1
1
1
^
S
o-
't
t-
iM
•«*
^
ec
t^
g
05
S
S
05
5
S
e^rtcviot^eoas'-'^
§
g
«^,^t.
C,-J2-^C.
"i
CO
1
z
1
5
1
1
-a
■3
P
1
<
■1
z
<
1
9
1
i
>
1
1
i
1
9
'-a
J
5
3
>
1
1
.2
'5
1
:
1
III
1
United States (Jew
United States (Jew
United States (Jew
United States (Jew
United States (Jew
II
1
II
II
1
1
1
1
United States (
United States (
United States {
United States (
United States
United States (
United States (
United States (
United States (
142
INTERMARRIAGE IN NEW YORK CITY
[294
1
52;
2
3rd Gen.
(NBNP)
with
3rd Gen.
(NBNP)
3rd Gen.
(NBNP)
with
2nd Gen.
(NBFP)
2nd Gen.
(NBFP)
with
3rd Gen.
(NBNP)
2nd Gen.
(NBFP)
with
2nd Gen.
(NBFP)
3rd Gen.
(NBNP)
with
Ist Gen.
(FBFP)
1st Gen.
(FBFP)
with
3rd Gen.
(NBNP)
2nd Gen.
(NBFP)
with
1st Gen.
(FBFP)
1st Gen.
(FBFP)
with
2nd Gen.
(NBFP)
1st Gen.
(FBFP)
with
1st Gen.
(FBFP)
1
<
1
\c> CI
00
o> --1
00 10
en
c^ t^
'S-Sg
S"- ;
CO«Oi-ICOOO'*CS»CO<N>^»HC<leO»-t«0»-te<3<MO»i-HCO»-ICCC005«0»MCJ50C<JeO
■»*< O to «5 <M '-I
O to «5
I
1
1
i
>
g
■3 '3 '3 '3 "3 '3 "3 "3 '3 '3 "3 '3 '3 "a "3 '3 '3 '3 "3 '3 '3 '3 '3 "3 "3 '3 "S '3 '3 '3 "3 [3
OQCQ
•3
PP
HO
W(5
S CZ2 •■
.5
>> >> >^
il^|1^^:ll|ll:S.sl.2i'||§|iggii|i
|^^||K«^;alc356da5Qw^lllcScSocSww
530g
295]
STATISTICAL APPENDIX
143
CO ~^ (M — '
C3 E^ "2 C5 f^
a ^ .^ o g
- !=« ■? T3 I
5&
e»4
(M
(g ;z; ^ rD [X(
C3 Pm
^ Cl3 P=<
o5 Ph
(MOOiCOOOOOOSCCCs
»0 »0 <M 10 CO 1-
t". fo >o t^ ir
-
* m <N
u^-
Is
1
1
1
1
1
•g
• «o OO CO
jS-^^g^^^
§5
SS
•* ^
B
OS-
■1
a
'^
1 -|5|S"'«S*'«'2Sg?S«--"'-»-- ;
^ CO ^
1 :
§
1
1
1
^
DQ
II
J
1
J
1
1
1
02
1
1
1
J
1
1
"a
1
P
1
1
s
1
T3
1
1
■a
1
1
1
02
■a
p
1
02
■a
p
1
02
■a
p
J
02
•a
p
1
1
1
J
p
1
1
J
1
1 ■
1
1
1
i
•-:
1
il
1
1
\
j
i
J
1
d
8
i
8
S
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
j
1
1
144
INTERMARRIAGE IN NEW YORK CITY
296
'3
y,^
^
>
<v
m
>:>
hJ
Xi
§
1
H
s
00
DO
J
w jt; .•« O fe
5^
«&
a fe .^ o ^
Z: PQ •£ ^ PQ
gp.
£3 fe :S rfj fe
es
c^
to
:
J
i
<
I
CM
<M ^
•a-
"ft
' t:
'J
i
1
^1
1
J
3
H
.2
1
<
1
<
)
,
\
CO
■
'■
':
■
i
:
<
:
00
1
•
:
S
«
eg
p
{r
;
1
"1
'
00
1
Vll
•
-J
1
OQ
^
1
1
1
c
1
1
J
1
1
■1
J2
u
-J
z
cc
V
CO '-H
•a-
I
3
H
297]
STATISTICAL APPENDIX
145
as
1
3rd Gen.
(NBNP)
with
3rd Gen.
fNBNP)
3rd Gen.
(NBNP)
with
2nd Gen.
(NBFP)
2nd Gen.
(NBFP)
with
3rd Gen.
(NBNP)
2nd Gen.
(NBFP)
with
2nd Gen.
(NBFP)
3rd Gen.
(NBNP)
with
1st Gen.
(FBFP)
1st Gen.
(FBFP)
with
3rd Gen.
(NBNP)
2nd Gen.
(NBFP)
with
1st Gen.
(FBFP)
1st Gen.
(FBFP)
with
2nd Gen.
(NBFP)
1st Gen.
(FBFP)
with
let Gen.
(FBFP)
1
2
1
2;
CMl
\
:
\
Z
<
m
o
I
CM
I
J
a
•|
1
\
CM
\
:
CM
J
,
i
eo
CO
:
eo
CO
J
'■
CMr
:
\
>
CM
^
I
1
H
146
INTERMARRIAGE IN NEW YORK CITY
[298
2
3rd Gen.
(NBNP)
with
Srd Gen.
(NBNP)
Srd Gen.
(NBNP)
with
2nd Gen.
(NBFP)
2nd Gen.
(NBFP)
with
Srd Gen.
(NBNP)
2nd Gen.
(NBFP)
with
2nd Gen.
(NBFP)
Srd Gen.
(NBNP)
with
1st Gen.
(FBFP)
1st Gen.
(FBFP)
with
Srd Gen.
(NBNP)
2nd Gen.
(NBFP)
with
Ist Gen.
(FBFP)
1st Gen.
(FBFP)
with
2nd Gen.
(NBFP)
1st Gen.
(FBFP)
with
1st Gen.
(FBFP)
1
1
Man
H r-*
es
1
s
CM
1
i
^
1
1
■1 CM
|l
1.1
;
ti
1
•
<
'"
I
jt ;
■
1
1
a
\
»
\
^ CO
: :
< . •
5 :
z :
J
"o' :
11^
2 :|
3 :
3
111
.C^ |0,
: : ;
a : : :
k\\\\
(M « a>
Luxemburg
Austria (Germ.)
France
Germany
• 2"
Luxemburg
Luxemburg
Luxemburg
Luxemburg
Luxemburg
Luxemburg
Totals
299]
STATISTICAL APPENDIX
147
W 'E _ PQ
«— ' CO ^ '
Ig-^Ss
_Ph _, gPLH
a ^
F' -g ^ m
(1.
CM
z
Ui
Z
;
est
:
1
§
M
■
:
1
1
1
H
CM
;
CO
Q
1
UI
z
(M
,1
e
\
J
1
J
1
1
< CM
:
I ^
"
ii
(^PM
1
w
^
CO
1
<
1
i
:
I
1
1
1
N
CM
4
:
J :
2 ■
1 :
« :
<N
CM
1
1
1
^
148
INTERMARRIAGE IN NEW YORK CITY
[300
i
<
1
S
1
3rd Gen.
(NBNP)
with
3rd Gen.
(NBNP)
3rd Gen.
(NBNP)
with
2nd Gen.
(NBFP)
2nd Gen.
(NBFP)
with
3rd Gen.
(NBNP)
2nd Gen.
(NBFP)
with
2nd Gen.
(NBFP)
3rd Gen.
(NBNP)
with
1st Gen.
(FBFP)
Ist Gen.
(FBFP)
with
3rd Gen.
(NBNP)
2nd Gen.
(NBFP)
with
Ist Gen.
(FBFP)
1st Gen.
(FBFP)
with
2nd Gen.
(NBFP)
1st Gen.
(FBFP)
with
1st Gen.
(FBFP)
1
1
<
1
iz:
i
rl to
: :
55. •
3 '■■
ux
> ■ ■
" N
H CO
h
ft
i :
is
III
i 1 !
N
1 e<9
CO
1
^
<
^"
<N
CM
1
1
1
1
^
c
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
6
m
30I
STATISTICAL APPENDIX
149
1
1
s
1
3rd Gen.
(NBNP)
with
3rd Gen.
(NBNP)
3rd Gen.
(NBNP)
with
2nd Gen.
(NBFP)
2nd Gen.
(NBFP)
with
3rd Gen.
(NBNP)
2nd Gen.
(NBFP)
with
2nd Gen.
(NBFP)
3rd Gen.
(NBNP)
with
Ist Gen.
(FBFP)
1st Gen.
(FBFP)
with
3rd Gen.
(NBNP)
2nd Gen.
(NBFP)
with
1st Gen.
(FBFP)
Ist Gen.
(FBFP)
with
2nd Gen.
(NBFP)
1st Gen.
(FBFP)
with
1st Gen.
(FBFP)
i
<
z
•<
1^
eo M
ro
3 :
z •
:
r
CO <M rt
cc
'1
1
^9
1
:
J
1
J
11
'
:
Hi .
:
z •
5 ;
:
i;
1
1
\
1
i
1
i\
:
< '■
111 . '
k\
;
1
•^
1
1
<N
eo
I
■3
z
i
i
-
J
1
1
.s
'1
1
eo
-*
00
So
1
5
1
1
1
i
^
g
*** $8
1
CM
7
CO
<o 04 g
<M
■0
1
•j
jl
2 «iS
j
1
J
P
3 1
5J
il
t
TABLE VI
Series 1—88
WOMEN
(For a discussion of the method of reading these tables and of
'their further utilization, see Introductory Note, page 87.)
152
INTERMARRIAGE IN NEW YORK CITY
[304
O
00
00
s
II
ffl g
1
CO V-- (M ^-^
C3 fe
— ' CO — -
^ o f*<
5|§
C3 Ps<
5|^
^2g
C3 ft)
j3 gPn
I
CC
^
cc
OC
(M
s
b-
CM
0:
(N
<fi
u:
S
OC
(N
M
<M
s
K
g
(N
a(N
CO
I
E
(N
C» 1-1 «0 CO CO
<?< »<N
1
f ?S
Tfl
l^
CO ^ ^
s
»Hceiorteo»Hi-<to-^t»"<K»-iesie<«eoeoeo
i-H N eo « •-< »-i
s
1
1
<
1
'i
=
1
.1
,1
1
1
?
i
1
i
c
1
i
1
I
>
1
rt
5I
52
8
1
a
]
1
1
1
•r
:
OS
.2
<
<
_0
-5
<
a
<
"5
1
1
e
•E
2
<
1
<
1
•1
2
<!
.2
1
<
t
1
<3
e
si
1
e
•c
1
-<
<5
e
.2
1
1
PQ
•c
1
<
■§•§
se
<
305]
STATISTICAL APPENDIX
153
C ftj On.
CO ^-- c^ ^— ^
_ PQ -C _, CQ
m •£ II pq
" « -g ^ m
S
C n. P Q.
rg fe "S r5 Pc(
OS M <M -H
eo e^ ^ -^ e<3 -H
eo CO ^^ i-t
05 IM C^ >-i M C<l
s-^s
«0 rH CO »-l 00 ^H C<l
.2 «Ph
e^ CO -^ th
O^q
154
INTERMARRIAGE IN NEW YORK CITY
[306
1
1
3rd Gen.
(NBNP)
with
3rd Gen.
(NBNP)
3rd Gen.
(NBNP)
with
2nd Gen.
(NBFP)
2nd Gen.
(NBFP)
with
3rd Gen.
(NBNP)
2nd Gen.
(NBFP)
with
2nd Gen.
(NBFP)
3rd Gen.
(NBNP)
with
1st Gen.
(FBFP)
1st Gen.
(FBFP)
with
3rd Gen.
(NBNP)
2nd Gen.
(NBFP)
with
1st Gen.
(FBFP)
Ist Gen.
(FBFP)
with
2nd Gen.
(NBFP)
1st Gen.
(FBFP)
with
1st Gen.
(FBFP)
1
<
1^
2;
1
2 «
CO
;
i
<
^
-^C^ rt ^
in
1
•c
<
1
<
;i
< <
1
s
<
"i
<
t-
C<l
Tt(
00
Tit
t-
<
^
CC
^
<N
S
S
t~ tK
e<
•*
1
C4
S-
C-HCO
05CO
J
E
IM
C^ «0 »H
(M
10 .-.
1 ^
1-1 ^ tH C^
ec 1-1 1-1
t-t C^
»-H
3—-
t^o^gcc^o
Cfl««ooeo«0'-ieo»-ic«i-i •
i
<
•E
<
'1
-<
1
"to
c
'1
j
1
1
1
1
:2
1
1
^2
C
1
^
1
i
■i
1
1
1
"1
1
1
oi
1
e
1
1
<
i
<
1
1
■<
'i
1
<
J
■<
1
<
J
1
<
J
1
■<
<
<
1
i
•<
•g
1
J
<
1
<
1
<
•<
J
CQ
1
J
1
-<
si
<
1
-5
1
•i
1
•i
<
•1
<
1
<
307]
STATISTICAL APPENDIX
155
1
1
2
1
3rd Gen.
(NBNP)
with
3rd Gen.
(NBNP)
3rd Gen.
(NBNP)
with
2nd Gen.
(NBFP)
2nd Gen.
(NBFP)
with
3rd Gen.
(NBNP)
2nd Gen.
(NBFP)
with
2nd Gen.
(NBFP)
3rd Gen.
(NBNP)
with
Ist Gen.
(FBFP)
1st Gen.
(FBFP)
with
3rd Gen.
(NBNP)
2nd Gen.
(NBFP)
with
1st Gen.
(FBFP)
1st Gen.
(FBFP)
with
2nd Gen.
(NBFP)
1st Gen.
(FBFP)
with
1st Gen.
(FBFP)
§
i
<
1
CO
eo
(M
<M
CM
"«
8
3
2
<
s
s
CO >-l (M
<N
i
_e
a
1
I
'5
1
1
1
3
:
1
i
1
<
'2
•1
1
1
<
•c
1
•<
J
1
■<
1
■5
'
■^
■*
g
oc
«
«o C<1
IN
<M
eo
i
<M
(M »-t
eo
00
^
E*^
u>
eo
^^<?»
<D
^ "^
i-iTHeot^'*co^i-i'-i«-i
C-^ ^ .-« <M CO »H T-1
S
.1
<
1
i
1
1
.
1
i
6
J
6
:|
J
1
>
T
a
Q
1
1
1
1
■^
J
1
!
1
C
i
T3
•1
>
i
1
1
1
'1
1
1
1
I
)-5
2
a
,J
1
1
.1
1
1
'1
^J
J
1
1
1
i
156
INTERMARRIAGE IN NEW YORK CITY
[308
1
3
SrdGen.
(NBNP)
with
3rd Gen.
(NBNP)
3rd Gen.
(NBNP)
with
2nd Gen.
(NBFP)
2nd Gen.
(NBFP)
with
3rd Gen.
(NBNP)
2nd Gen.
(NBFP)
with
2nd Gen.
(NBFP)
SrdGen.
( NBNP)
with
1st Gen.
(FBFP)
1st Gen.
(FBFP)
with
3rd Gen.
(NBNP)
2nd Gen.
(NBFP)
with
1st Gen.
(FBFP)
1st Gen.
(FBFP)
with
2nd Gen.
(NBFP)
1st Gen.
(FBFP)
with
Ist Gen.
(FBFP)
5
^
1
i
(M
est
^
R
<M •
CM
CM
J
;
-*
"5
5 "5
UJ
5
«
CO
m
1
CM
fL cje^ (N (M
iP
i
.1
c
i
i
1
1
1
c
N
)
-
I
li
c
^1
.J
^1
:
ft
3(2
5 PC
5P
5 PC
^1
ipq
1
^
<M
t-
eo c^
eq
s
"
3
i
z
111
X
CO
E
cL^-------
s
1
1
3£
ll
lis
III
1
1
1
12
ll
H 1-
3 PC
;pc
5 PC
:i
ft
;'pc
u
5 PC
)pq
.2
t^
Tj<
eo
e<»
eo
s
ta
c<
^ •<*i
J
z
lUCQ ^ <M C^
<
Z
«5
So
J.
T»<
^
-».-.«»
ll
<
4
111
i
■I
•b
s
t
^1
c
'1
^1
'1
ll
1
'i
309]
STATISTICAL APPENDIX
157
ll
a ^ .^ o f^
"Sfe
= &< _. g Ah
3 PiH ':3 [-hj fe
^ « "5 2 «
■<*< ec 05 <M
T}< -H (M CO <N
52: ^g
i-t (M (M <M
ii iillii?Siiii|l.»ji|i
OQ 02 M OQ tS C^ -< O
II'
"TS "XS '^ "X? '
-O XJ '^ T3 T3 XJ
rt C3 c^ c3 ^ ^
a c c c a a
C3i:«c3c3c3e3e3e3csc3c<303
oooooooooooooooooooooo
o ^ t^ ■* «o o
Tt.
I
<
a
<
z
IM
< C4
1
«
C«
•* i-H O C<l «o I
03 i 08 i3
a <» a cm
es :d cs a
4
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
u u u u u o
s c3 a a a £3
sis s i i
fe fe fe P&t 6 (S
000000
158
INTERMARRIAGE IN NEW YORK CITY
[310
|£:2||
26'^
<M (N
'"'
CO
cq
"-1
IN
^1
CO .-1
^
1
8
g
1
^
^-
(M
J§
1
'2
■> >
1=
c
c
1
J
1
1
c
0.
C
1
1
1
1
c!
1
'2
1
'2
1
1
1
,1
1
1
1
.1
1
1
1
1
1
e;
IC
'
;
(M
CM
3
CO
CO
^
(N (T* 11
CD
1
i
1
-
5
1
1
'1
1
C
i
'
1
1
1
J
1
1
cc
eo
cc
CJ
^ (N ^
CO
5
<
to
'"
<M
2
<N ^
c
1
i
^1
1
1
1
E
CS
1
>
1
1
'8
1
i
1
i
c
1
c
. c
1
c
cc
i
c
a
6
'j
6
3ii]
STATISTICAL APPENDIX
159
1
1
S
1
3rd Gen.
(NBNP)
with
3rd Gen.
( NBNP)
3rd Gen.
(NBNP)
with
2nd Gen.
(NBFP)
2nd Gen.
(NBFP)
with
3rd Gen.
(NBNP)
2nd Gen.
(NBFP)
with
2nd Gen.
(NBFP)
3rd Gen.
(NBNP)
with
1st Gen.
(FBFP)
1st Gen.
(FBFP)
with
3rd Gen.
(NBNP)
2nd Gen.
(NBFP)
with
1st Gen.
(FBFP)
1st Gen.
(FBFP)
with
2nd Gen.
(NBFP)
1st Gen.
(FBFP)
with
1st Gen.
(FBFP)
2;
<
2:
■* i« -
!?
00
.8
V
1 ^
1
CO
<
OQ
I
■0
eo >c
s
1
1
1
a:
i
1
^1
^
c
£
■»
1
1
:
i
c
1
i
C
'
1
oc
M
•»ti
<N
^
•*
e^
OS eo 00
(N
eo '-I
'-H CO
'
■«*<
<
<M
e^
<M .
« M
eo T-i
(M T-< ,-1
--
00(Mi-<O>eO<Mi-li-l<M— It^
1
1
1
<
' £
1
•1
1
j
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
>
1
s
1
1
1
i5
1
J
CC
1
1
CO
p
-g
J
1
1
1
1
1
Q
1
1
p
-2
1
p
%
%
%
1
J
-1
P
1
i
i6o
INTERMARRIAGE IN NEW YORK CITY
[312
is
l§
S ST o cu
^^
CO
ii
a
s
e<5
S
03
(O
;
s
s
I
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
C
J
'1
c
\
1
1
1
1
,
H
J.^
<r> OS ^^ eo
Tft<MU5(M(M<MlMC5
05 10 <M ^* "S
CQ c4 A p3
■" '5 "S .2
3 * fl
-Sep
W -5 -*! -H -< M PQ O O O Q fe dS O OOP
'0'0'T3'0'T3'OT3TJ-a-a'T3T3'a'a'W'U'T3
313]
STATISTICAL APPENDIX
i6i
go; go;
»
C Qj S3 Ou
«5
(M
I'll
C3 fJH tS C5 f^
^<^
^ -«
so
CO
C^
i
CO
cc
o
cc
OS
e<5
S
(M
Tt<
00
T»<
•c
t^
■>*<
(?»
00
iM
1
CO
■>*< oo
l-H C^
t^
iM
IM <M
<M »-l 00 <N
«o
s
1
8
8
r9
Q
Z
ooo^o
'
CO
CO
C^
s
z ^
I
S"'
(M
^ CO
CO
s
rHC'l^lOkOt-'-lt^
^gc^t^-^ojo.
lO « (M rt (M rt
i
T
C
1
:1
(
1 1
c
1
3
• 2
i :2
y
I
I
'J
■J
iJ
ii
'. t:
ii
ii
U
1 rj
3
3
1
\\
'■I
i
3 <
^1
M
.1
3c
p
5tl
3 \
3p:
'J
1
il
:|
: Z
' -5
1]
3
:
3 t
'1
3 t
H
3fi
c
'1
3 T
ll
3 ft
3 T.
3 t:
1 c
5;^
3 T
3 "T.
\ I
hi
U
h
3b~
3^
3 t:
3 t:
! c
bl
3;^
bT
ii
3 t:
3 -;
i c
3 t
i
h
'1
h
3 T
il
Pi
3 1^
h
1 9
n
5 ft
h
11
3
on
«<) e^ U3 00
Q
!
O <M »0 t*
J
SOQW
■a -o -a
a 5 a n
.a.s.s.a
pS4 pE4 pEl |JH
1 62
INTERMARRIAGE IN NEW YORK CITY
[314
1
2
1
3rd Gen.
(NBNP)
with
3rd Gen.
(NBNP)
3rd Gen.
(NBNP)
with
2nd Gen.
(NBFP)
2nd Gen.
(NBFP)
with
3rd Gen.
(NBNP)
2nd Gen.
(NBFP)
with
2nd Gen.
(NBFP)
3rd Gen.
(NBNP)
with
1st Gen.
(FBFP)
1st Gen.
(FBFP)
with
3rd Gen.
(NBNP)
2nd Gen.
(NBFP)
with
1st Gen.
(FBFP)
Ist Gen.
(FBFP)
with
2nd Gen.
(NBFP)
1st Gen.
(FBFP)
with
Ist Gen.
(FBFP)
§
i
fc
S
1
"* OS eo M <M ^
rH <M eO .-
^
■^
§
:
CM
-2
1
I
CM
Z "^
I
t^^
10
CO to C^ CO C^ CO
f-HC-JON^lO-^Irt
1
1
>
1
1
> >
2
>
1
i
>
s
1
>
2
c
1
52;
i
1
c
1
93
1
J
1
t:
J
i
5
i
1
T
i
1
•1
1
i
1
■1
^
1
1
s
1
1
CD
1
t^eoMr^aieoec^coe^PSO^Hec
»-> C^ CSl
CO (M .-H ^ r-(
SBfe.
I
<i<;<PQOOO
g8gS§SS8SS8SS8
III
315]
STATISTICAL APPENDIX
163
i
2
1
3rd Gen.
(NBNP)
with
3rd Gen.
(NBNP)
3rd Gen.
(NBNP)
with
2nd Gen.
(NBFP)
2nd Gen.
(NBFP)
with
3rd Gen.
(NBNP)
2nd Gen.
(NBFP)
with
2nd Gen.
(NBFP)
3rd Gen.
(NBNP)
with
1st Gen.
(FBFP)
1st Gen.
(FBFP)
with
3rd Gen.
(NBNP)
2nd Gen.
(NBFP)
with
iBt Gen.
(FBFP)
1st Gen.
(FBFP)
with
2nd Gen.
(NBFP)
1st Gen.
(FBFP)
with
1st Gen.
(FBFP)
1
5
^
a
us eo
^§s
■«t<
«
<N(M(NOSOO-^OM
<M
<M
(M
eo
g
^*
■<*<
s
1
I
^ «<D
CO -^
1
Z
<
!
«5 (M
s
»o<Mi-iir<»c^^-*t^^c<i
(M^t-OSOC^t-*^
<N T^
T-H to
1
C.
>
•1
i
>
1
'1
'2
J
'-1
c
•J
1
1
■l
a
c
If
t:
5
1
1
1
■> ^
1
<
J
1
■p
J
'1
1
1
^
2
ff
t
c
• $
.i
1
c
£
&:
J
i
1
t
J
c
1
J
1
1
1
,1
1
1
J
\
t
1
,
1
1
^
1
• i
1
1
a
c
1
a
1
1
1
1
J
1
1
1
a
1
J
;
OQ
164
INTERMARRIAGE IN NEW YORK CITY
[316
S
g
H
• ^-^
.
k%
5.^^
%l
■^^g
m
:ScSfe
si
■^^e
4g
^11
li
^il
4e
aria
?g
•s-gg
<M ^
11
111
le
5ii
s&
^i§
It
5|g
^1
2^
5|£
g£
n?^£
•^Sg
z,
S
iz;
S
^
ioe<5eqeooi»-io>i-i
OJ'<f<»e<ic>«'*ooc<»po-»j<oo»oc<i
ffSS^S
s^
CO • CO CO CO
i-H'^e>»»Ht^go»'<t<0500>"S'
»-c T»< e<i
11 ■ ""
III g §.^-t« §-§1^2 £
o a 3 «
&[] U U J^
I
t» eo o «o
c« •• c«
^5's33j
rt H E *^ -t-" a
§• " o g fe 3
sals
CO M CO CQ
iigilgii§iiiillgiilliliii§§li§ii
OOOOC5000000000000000000C500C500000
317]
STATISTICAL APPENDIX
165
1
e<5 01 eo CO
gCL, „ gCL,
S^
goJ
i fe -^ '^ S
c^ e<> t^ T-i ^H
I
it
^f3
00000
»o eo --I »-< (M evj
^ <u o o IS >i
^omongg.
•c -c
"a 3
O^^^OOOQMSfaOOMWMA
. xj j3 -a ua ^
A JA Xi AA A .
tn tn 1^ *£ t^ 'C
OCDOOOOOOOOOOOOOOi
1 66
INTERMARRIAGE IN NEW YORK CITY
[318
if
IS
ig's
<M
5|i
_ Oh §Ph
5 PM a oT
£3 pc4 ttS r5 P=<
eo r^ c« 00 U5 c>«
5.55. o i? ^ a H %? >> •
33IIIIIIM
0000000000
Sr; ^; Z :z; !z; ;z; ^; z 5z: :z;
>>>.>>>>>>>.>.>.>.>'
0000000000
t^ « 00 »-H »-< ^H
to <0 «0 05 •-*
US 1-1
T»t
RMANY (
6
1
e^
1-1 Tt<
"^
1
! "^
< -^
■, ^
C^ 00 »-H
Ji
I
OB
c! a
w£ I
I II ill I ill
OOOQHgfaOOW
ggiiiggg§geggggig
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOC
319]
STATISTICAL APPENDIX
167
1§ ^S"
O Pl, g (1-1
C3 f*< "5 r5 f=<
CM ■-' <M ^-
go.
IS
CQ Mil
CM
2«'
c^Neo<Nec»^ocoeooeceo(M-<
i
1 :
;
CO 1-1
r»
1 :
•
1 ;
f-
s
i
HI
• (M
"w ^
S5
I Tt<.-l(M<MC<li-ICO'-<C<3«=C<l<N(M-^
§
:5
|2
1
^
si
■il
•1
1
1
1
i
1
:
3;
CQ J
1
f i
S3
II
11
S3 S3
00
S"
2
i
3
1
S"
3
I
00 ^ 1-1 »H »o
O
Ml
LU
OC
O
I
«^eo^.
10
00000
cq
Q
i
a -H
■o :g
O 3 flj c8 3
W<5PQOOI
t) "O 73 "O TJ T>
lllll J
000000
i68
INTERMARRIAGE IN NEW YORK CITY
[320
1^. «fe
C3 f^ "ScS f=<
CO -C CO
o fe .^ ^ S
1 ■
§•?.!
e<»c<»»-(ooooe<ic<ieoe<s
i-i.-<o»e^T-ic<ieqi-ii-ies»c>i«
aaaaaaaaaaaa
"o 0'0'0'0'o'o'o'c'o'o'o
cmU <-i
i
■^
eo CO
S
"5
CO
■<J< eo
to
eo
s
•^
<o
1
z
M
•0
=.
s^
•o
o>
t^'*t»HC<ic<«ioeot*»-<«o«>c<«eo
w e« r-l
§
r
1
1
'I
c
2
^1
i
i
•i
■1
i
t:
1
tr
'1
£
I
I
c
|1
u
£
If
ii
1
d
:j
(I
1
:j
1
•i
c
J
1
tr
1
> 5
a
1
c
1
tr
1
tr
H
321]
STATISTICAL APPENDIX
169
c p^ a I
is
<S ^ .-2 o ^
IS
S ^
£0. -, gA.
O fe -g rK ps<
gflH
g^;
SP4
o
irt >-i ^ 10
T-i»Ht>.C^eO(M<M'^
III
sl
OS
sa
SI
«l"
333S§3333333pS33
^ § § « § § « 3 3 g 3 3 ^ ^ ^
10 —1
« 53 Cfl (M <M Csj C5
50
<M
04
i
> 00
«
I 0^
(M
<N
C4 10 «-< rH to
eS5
•S3
S.s
M S o 3
•a, cs d;S i § I
<r3pqpQOQWPmSO
170
INTERMARRIAGE IN NEW YORK CITY
[322
i ^^ CO O
I
o ^ .^ o ^
CO — e<i —
&5
O Qli
^55
^ ^— ec
P5-C
&5,
SSS^;:
c»ej^(M
c«cor>
■*
tC
c<;
11
i
t
:
C^-H
V
'"i
r3
>-
5
a
z
i
CS|«3
»
1 tDOOO<MjH<MOOOOC^O-HC»ejl^^,H«>«)^CS«
i
1
■
>
a
c
1
w
t
c
i
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
.2
s
J
c
§
1
1
j
1
i
i
■a
p
1
1
_g
"1
pa
6
1
-2
1
i
1
i
i
tl
'I
i
w
>
i
> >
1
>
t
a
tl
i
i
1
1 b
1
i
tE
i
c
ti
i
1
t
c
i
1
tr
i
c
3
tzi
1
3
a
^
323]
STATISTICAL APPENDIX
171
CO ^-' CO -— '
eg fe
g(X.
CO >-^ i-( ^— '
gPH_a goT
5 PM ^ SMH
5 S'_rt g S"
zip ? hI?'
P o? '^ ■
;S in ^ rji ecus t^ gj eo US <M 1-1 os ■>* ^^ -h
i
-«s
•>*
-2s;
<M t^
« «
^ CO
^S^'
n
-IRELAN
412
CO
■*
00,00
CO ^ g - JO C. CO CO
^g"s
W T»< C*
Sg
ec
cq
CO
tl
■*
2S
2
<M
e<
^ ^ ^ - 3
M C-i-i
^^
«S
-2 -a
<j<i<i-
.S .2 ^ 43 ^
t< (, 00 «J .s
-jg -g "43 -n hf
is
fills
CO r-t
ii.
ll
^s
13 la 13 g- « o g
Hfldaaaaaccdacaagnggflgggggcggcggfl
o3c3^rtcJo3c3^cJ^c8^c3^^ ^ c3 jw 03 03 ^^ ^ _c3 ^ ro ^ ^ ^ ot ^c3 ^ ^S .
172
INTERMARRIAGE IN NEW YORK CITY
[324
1
_ pq -C '-' BQ
s5^
is. f^.
go.
©■?
o5
Sph-
+3 r5 fe
"5
CO
r»
U5
05
S:^
(M
r-
t^
"5
OS
g
CO
S""^
CO
OJ
"
■>*
10
"S^^ 2
Oi
t*
(M rH -^
^
^
:
i
(N
to
■-a <M^-«t<»-it^eoooco-^^^>0
CO ^ ^ CO
i
I
■^
CO
'
CO
CD
i
N m
00
S'^^'^S
«o ■««<
CO
M
»H t~
IM
i
1
1
^1
\
1
p:
1
1
i
1
1
i
1
X
1
1
'2
1
1
1
1
1
J
1
>
1
1
-J
1
1
i
1
"6
1
1
<
)
1
—
1
^1
"i
a
I
J
1
1
•1
1
i
1
1
1
1
!
X
J
1
■J
1
1
1
S
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
X
1
1
X
1
J
,
1
^
I
1
1
i
325]
STATISTICAL APPENDIX
173
_ CM - SPh
CQ •£ _, CQ
&■
M
£3 Z t3 r5 Pn
r; « -s ^ m
§Ph
C CL,
1
3
c^
<M
ff*
-*
IM
<o
S
CO
0:
s
«c
■<#
t~
<M
M
CM
i
CM
§
(M
»-i ec ^
^^00
^
<M
^
^ i
»>•
1-1 Tt< rH 10 rt
i
^
1-H (M OJ
to
S
i-
(M
(M t^ CO C^ 00
"S
(M
co^co«=
1
J
i
i
J
S a
1
3 a
<
:1
3.2
1
11
1
I
>
c
2
1
:1
■1
>
i
J
iJ
!-
i]
si
rs
1
1
1
ii
Si
It
is
is
i
s
_K
H
n
H
H
d
IJ
IJ
(J
^i
li
\i
H
j_f
li
ii
rl
•> >
11
?^
i|
M
Ij
\i
\i
^J
rj
h
ii
I
174
INTERMARRIAGE IN NEW YORK CITY
[326
1
2
3rd Gen.
(NBNP)
with
3rd Gen.
(NBNP)
3rd Gen.
(NBNP)
with
2nd Gen.
(NBFP)
2nd Gen.
(NBFP)
with
3rd Gen.
(NBNP)
2nd Gen.
(NBFP)
with
2nd Gen.
(NBFP)
3rd Gen.
(NBNP)
with
Ist Gen.
(FBFP)
1st Gen.
(FBFP)
with
3rd Gen.
(NBNP)
2nd Gen.
(NBFP)
with
1st Gen.
(FBFP)
1st Gen.
(FBFP)
with
2nd Gen.
(NBFP)
1st Gen.
(FBFP)
with
1st Gen.
(FBFP)
!
1
-<
»
s
1
187
1193
; ; ; ". ': ^
mNH ;
«2 ;:-'.. ■
i ; : : : :
• C^ ; ; • CO
•MM M
H . . . . . 10
i --'
■g 1
Italy (North)
Austria (Germ.)
Austria (Ital.)
England
Germany
Germany (North)
Greece
ireiana
Italy (South)
Scotland
Switzerland (Ital.)
Russia (Jew)
Cuba (Col.)
Italy (North)
Italy (North)
Italy (North)
Italy (North)
Italy (North)
Italy (North)
Xtaly (North)
Italy (iNortn;
Italy (North)
Italy (North)
Italy (North)
Italy (North)
Italy (North)
Totals
0(M»-<r-i(>»e»3i-«"5g'-i(M.-i(MM^ r«.
i::::: :^: :::::: : :
'<»<;-'-i-H CO
= NNHM;HNN :
TALY (SO
376
5
1
382
^ i ; r M ;' ; M N N "
o<M'-i -rtco -T-too-He^^^csii-i jr
Italy (South)
Canada (French)
Cuba (Span.)
England
Germany
Greece
Hungary (SI.)
Ireland
Italy (North)
Norway
Porto Rico (Span.)
Scotland
Spain
Turkey
Switzerland (French)
327]
STATISTICAL APPENDIX
175
sl'^ss
CO — CM "-^
_ « -g _ «
ca Pm 't3 £3 z
CM -— CO --^
p3
1 Se^
2p^:S2fe
- « "5 -- «
<N
S2
S3
-*
g3
"5
Tj<
-<♦<
g§
CO
c^
(M
g
<M
rH (M
05
^ 00
s
>
T-^ c*
(M l-H
'
« CO
<M CO
^ i-H
Its ^
(M
s
CO c^
^rt.-<003»-Ht^(MrH
oscoec— i,-i>-ieotoiMr-i»H
g
>
■<
■<
-5
Si
c
1
c
1
J
•1
>
C
1
1
1
f
1
1
J
'(£
'1
1
CO
c
1
1
>
J
1
1
!Z
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 >
i
1
1
52
!2
i
OS
1
'1
1
1
1
1
J
J
1
5?
1
1
5I
i
176
INTERMARRIAGE IN NEW YORK CITY
[328
£3 S5 73 r»5 fe
" PQ -c 2 m
goT - gp^
to fe "^ a 5.
sF^ g^
ec
(M
M
s
•
:
z
CO
0^
E
«■
»-l (M rt CO ^
a
1
i
'•5
J
C
1
1
1
i
i
IS.
3|
p.
E
1
s
1
J
•I
H
to
;
■
'^
«s
10
;^
0!
-2
K
(M
s
M
»« t- CO
U3
t-
'^
■<»<
i
-
C^
e^
■w ^
"w
J
g
<
en
r<-
k
CO
o>
Oc<ieo»-i>-ccoto-^r>.cO'-<'0
QO ^ -^ -^
i
1
1
i
'.2
c
%
<
i
1
1
1
0;
1
E
) t
1
1
^2
c
1
i
1
1
p:
1
'i
1
1
5
J
■E
I
1
oi
'i
p=
I
a
1
1
p:
1
PC
^1
1
IT
1
P:
1
p:
J
1
IX
,1
a!
■|
p:
I
1
ft
s
i
p:
"2
1
p:
1
1
ec
1
329]
STATISTICAL APPENDIX
177
o S .^ o ^
CO — - <N ^^
C<| ^ ^ ,H krt,
<N .-H «0 »-l
IM • <M ^ O
Ii3
rs'S
c -c -c -5
II
«0 »H Ca CO ^H
CJ • C^ (M
to o c^ ■* e<i
^1
^'
§ § -C
-<<5mooo
iillilliiiii||||t|li||iiri|
JJIPIJgJJJJggJJJJJJJJJJJJJJgJjl
8
_ 8
02 C» i
8 8 8
: OQ CQ CQ I
178
INTERMARRIAGE IN NEW YORK CITY
[330
C3 ^ .■§ O ^
£3 Z 73 r5 CiH
a CL,
CM ■-'
5 Ph
C<l .-
H (N
g
2'
-1 CO « ec Tj< T.
H •^H CO N "5 1-
H CO 1-
f
-
52
-^
• <N
in
-
"2
Z
s
!
• C>» (M
CO
1
ss
»-l <M
^
C^rt(i5CCCO'-lr-l.-HT-l(MlO^CO'-Cr-»-c
i
1
i
1
1
s
J
6
J
1
1
i
>
i
1
1
>
3
> >
3
4
1
^8
1
J
1
05
i
1
1
1
t:
T3
J
H
•i
e
e
.a
.s
c
d
.5
.a
.a
.a
.a
.a
.a
c
a
;
m
CQCQCQCQCQGQCfQCCCQCQGQGQO:
1
CO GQ OQ CO
•
z • • •
Ulo .
'T
g-a.2,
a; a; a> V
^ ^ ^ ^
331]
STATISTICAL APPENDIX
179
gd, gCL,
s's^
SPh
C3 fe '
CO ~— - "-H ^^
gPn
05 > -««
is
g Ph
SPh
2^
Ph
Ph
%%
«»HOe<l»-it-^<»'-'»O»^<Mt^»C<M(M(M^C5»-l^-«t<00C<l(MC«-H»H,-lC<l'*tl,M t-
;;;;;;;;;;.;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;•;;;; ^
CO.-<;t^;;C«-...-05CO...;-4...^......^(N- O
iHHnnNNnnnMMHHH'H;"
DEN-Con
39
ijc^..»o-co-rt.i-H.eo<M..--(M.i-i.i-H.. 1-1 •
-" :§^2'*J3=^S'«*^gS^'-^'^'^S'^ .co^<Nc.^^^ : :^^ ^
Canada (Engl.)
Canada (French)
Denmark
England
Finland
France
Germany
Germany (North)
Germany (South)
Greece
HoUand
Hungary (Germ.)
Ireland
Italy
Italy (North)
Italy (South)
Japan
Mexico (Span.)
Norway
Porto Rico (Span.)
Portugal
Russia (Pol.)
Scotland
Spain
Switzerland (French)
Switzerland (Germ.)
Syria
Wales
United States (Col.)
Germany (Jew)
Russia (Jew)
Brazil
on
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 3
HflaccortrtaaccBHOrtaggggggggggggggg
OQCZJCQCQOaOQOQOaCQOQOQCQCQOQCQCQCQCQCQCCCQCQCQCQCQCCCQCQCQCQMaj
i8o
INTERMARRIAGE IN NEW YORK CITY
[332
c cli £5 Qj
a (=< "5 c5 (*<
^ PQ -c ^ pq
CM "— ' (M ^—
SPh jg go^
^ "^ to fe
c& 00 ec —1 '■
< Tj* ic irt ^
^sKsg^
CO -
,^^co^
Cfl ^
^
«c
c-
§
<M
• CO
s
• CO
&>
a
Z
2
^OO^^rH
IM
■^ »-l
^
K CO
1
'
CO ^
CO
s
TO 00 (M tH
,-.,-(CS|Tt*t^.-<COOOO«5^^-HM(>)
C<|^,-lrtT-(«OCC»-l •
§
1
1
'1
<
•1
1
i
i
1
IX
:
6
1
1
1
1
[I
1
1
2
T3
1
2
b
g
tfl
i
2
i
1
i
g
.8
2
1
i
d
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
I
a
1
1
1
1
•5
1
1
02
1
132
1
1
i
1
i
1
1
1
j
i
1
1
1
?
§
-a
1
1
i
1
1
1
-0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
u
■a
1
1
1
i
1
1
i
1
5
1
1
1
1
J
1
1
i
1
i
1
1
1
1
2
CI
H
333]
STATISTICAL APPENDIX
i8i
s
1
3rd Gen.
(NBNP)
with
3rd Gen.
(NBNP)
3rd Gen.
(NBNP)
with
2nd Gen.
(NBFP)
2nd Gen.
(NBFP)
with
3rd Gen.
(NBNP)
2nd Gen.
(NBFP)
with
2nd Gen.
(NBFP)
3rd Gen.
(NBNP)
with
1st Gen.
(FBFP)
1st Gen.
(FBFP)
with
3rd Gen.
(NBNP)
2nd Gen.
(NBFP)
with
Ist Gen.
(FBFP)
1st Gen.
(FBFP)
with
2nd Gen.
(NBFP)
1st Gen.
(FBFP)
with
1st Gen.
(FBFP)
Jz;
o
t
i
«c
S
55
:
ev4
:
E
Q
2:
i
" ---0
u
2
1
1
1
J
ft
"1
c
1
J
2
J
i
•1
1
1
1
^1
1
1
i
.i
I
1
1
a
1
,1
^
~1
1 a
■
1
'"'
<N
S
;
;
i
I—
CM
1
.-H rH CSJ
s:
X
e
1
'i
'A
c
c
1
S
■>.>
^
1
-1
1
<
1
1
3
II
1
1
1
t:
1
1
1
"i
eq
R
;
jH rt —1 rt
S
05
1
1
■5
'1
3
1
:
1
I
^
^
i
1
l82
INTERMARRIAGE IN NEW YORK CITY
[334
-§1
555
fa ^ r5 Z
a fa tS c3 !*<
5 .^ o fe
Qj On,
afe:2^fa
§
5
:
>
UJ
V
g^^
J
>
1
c
1
i
(MM'^O^iCOS'xJtlNt^eC^T-lOC
:5;'*'"SS
cOOt^i-iOOUS'^N
e<3 «o «o i-< «o
W «P C» 1-1 T^
«0 ^ CO (M 0> r-l e« '
8S
1^
. o o
'S'2
►5^
^^
s© s
pi
-^<3<! mpqpqpQpapQOOOOOQHfaWfaOi
S|S||S|8S||||S|8|8JJ8||S8
"a '3 'S "S '3 '3 '3 '3 '3 "3 '3 "3 '3 '3 '3 '3 '3 '3 '3 "3 '3 "5 '3 '3 'S
335]
STATISTICAL APPENDIX
183
1^-
CO > — C>I — '
IS
*3 r5 f=<
=535
+= r>5 f=*
- gpL,
OrHc^oc<>cce<iiftcooioo»ooose<5<Mt^coioi>
05 OS C<l c^
C<5 O i-H US (N M »H
OS to <M CO <M
CO OJ Cq CO «o
sow
H »:3 fl a q -2 J
:S-«
m
c .Si
S "iC Ph Ph
<U 45 (U ^
ll^l^
-3 .3 ^ a a> S
S !z; (S p5 ;aig^rom;»P^pHH>-^<!<!OH&^0
•g "3 '3 '3 "3 "3 '3 "3 "3 '3 "3 "3 a '3 "3 "3 '3 '3 '3 '3 "3 a a "3 "3 '3 a '3 ;3 '3 '3 '3
i84
INTERMARRIAGE IN NEW YORK CITY
[336
1
1
3rd Gen.
(NBNP)
with
3rd Gen.
(NBNP)
3rd Gen.
(NBNP)
with
2nd Gen.
(NBFP)
2nd Gen.
(NBFP)
with
3rd Gen.
(NBNP)
2nd Gen.
(NBFP)
with
2nd Gen.
(NBFP)
3rd Gen.
(NBNP)
with
1st Gen.
(FBFP)
1st Gen.
(FBFP)
with
3rd Gen.
(NBNP)
2nd Gen.
(NBFP)
with
Ist Gen.
(FBFP)
1st Gen.
(FBFP)
with
2nd Gen.
(NBFP)
1st Gen.
(FBFP)
with
1st Gen.
(FBFP)
i
2
Woman
.-I CO T-l ,-C
§; &=
i-H t^ 05 ec 00
10 1-1
0> <M
£ « 03
iiliilii
cocQOiajajcccQcQ
"S c "a 'c '3 '3 "3 '3
OS t— O 00 •— t T-^
'o'o^'o'o'o'o'o -ooo
Q>Q>oa3a)a>a>a3SoSc>
oSa>4>o^a>OQj^a30
■3 "3 '3 "3 "3 '3 "3 '3 "3 '3 '3 '3
pppppppppppp
T^ (M t^ 00 -H
CO rt
(M CO •
<M
^"
.-1 \a
S3
— t eo
i
^
t:
^
«? 03 "u O « 2!
CD 03 QQ 00
Cd V O O
mii^
337]
STATISTICAL APPENDIX
185
5z:
s
1
3rd Gen.
(NBNP)
with
3rd Gen.
(NBNP)
3rd Gen.
(NBNP)
with
2nd Gen.
(NBFP)
2nd Gen.
(NBFP)
with
3rd Gen.
(NBNP)
2nd Gen.
(NBFP)
with
2nd Gen.
(NBFP)
3rd Gen.
(NBNP)
with
Ist Gen.
(FBFP)
1st Gen.
(FBFP)
with
3rd Gen.
(NBNP)
2nd Gen.
(NBFP)
with
1st Gen.
(FBFP)
1st Gen.
(FBFP)
with
2nd Gen.
(NBFP)
1st Gen.
(FBFP)
with
1st Gen.
(FBFP)
1
Jz;
1
(M ifl
s
■*
CO
:
^ W
00
-*
'
CO CO
s?
1
:
1
1
i
< CM eo « CO ^
< 05 00 C^ <35 ^
H-*COOOt^-«t<OOi«'-<^
-co coo
^
CO
?§
10
s
(M —1 <0
•c c^
s^s-^s^S
'0
g
'
^
S
<M
""-s-^g^ss-^
g
r
CO
(>» <N
CO
00 ^ O-w ^
^
i
C^«5eOi-li-(C^T*((MCO
'^S^S:::^!^
(>) CO
i
•1
i
.2
1
1
>
c
>
1
c
3
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
•3
p
1
"3
«
1
4
G
1
S
1
1
>
c
1
1
1
i
1
1
c
1
1
1
1
1
•1
<
'5
•1
z
<
1
<
1
1
1
<
1
<
I
•c
<
1
<
1
1
1
•i
1
1
■5
1
■9
•3
<
t3
<
1
1
.2
<
1
<
1
■|
<
1
<
1
<
1
-5
1
1
1
<
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i86
INTERMARRIAGE IN NEW YORK CITY
[338
a fe "S CD p»^
!g-slg
® S
C3 fe .^ O &!
IR
0-H^C<.^^«^;5;C.cc«^«^-H|5
r-< C>J-- CO
Tj« ■ • t-l •
:S :S;---g : :- R
g :M U
••••••• -t-- • • !«-
~ (M • • •
Q
a ....
■ oOt^<m . -.-feo ■ T-i ■ go
^Hn
(M-'*^--*-- CM
•.*;";";«::: «
England (Jew)
Canada (French)
England
Italy
Italy (South)
United States
Austria (Jew)
Bulgaria (Jew)
Germany (Jew)
Holland (Jew)
Hungary Jew)
Rumania (Jew)
Russia (Jew)
United States (Jew)
Canada (Jew)
Sweden (Jew)
England (Jew)
England (Jew)
England (Jew)
England (Jew)
Enffland f Jew)
England (Jew)
England (Jew)
England (Jew)
England (Jew)
England (Jew)
England (Jew)
England (Jew)
England (Jew)
England (Jew)
England (Jew)
England (Jew)
Totals
^^coco^^co-^ «
. . . M CM
; : :«J2'
-« : : 8
2 : M M
. • . C>» CM
Hi : : ': ':
N^ . . j-
rrr
rH r-l . . r<.
• T-H e>j • ■
• ■ ^ ■ ^
France (Jew)
France
Austria (Jew)
England (Jew)
Germany (Jew)
Hungary (.)ew)
Russia (Jew)
Turkey (Jew)
United States (Jew)
France (Jew)
France (Jew)
France (Jew)
France (Jew)
France (Jew)
France (Jew)
France (Jew)
France (Jew)
France (Jew)
Totals
339]
STATISTICAL APPENDIX
187
3rd Gen.
(NBNP)
with
3rd Gen.
( NBNP)
3rd Gen.
(NBNP)
with
2nd Gen.
(NBFP)
2nd Gen.
(NBFP)
with
3rd Gen.
(NBNP)
2nd Gen.
(NBFP)
with
2nd Gen.
(NBFP)
3rd Gen.
(NBNP)
with
Ist Gen.
(FBFP)
&5<
i"
Tt
cs
a
oc
c^
"
W <0 N t;^ « (N
(M
^^
1
;
s
u>
CSJ
1
r->^^<^
§
^*^g?S
§
1
»o
CO
«
cc
„, ^^.^j^
•* ■* (M l« —t <N
(M
^
<M
O^^^g,
s
cc <N -^
w '^^
o^oc.co;5;g
t^
>
£
C3
1
1
-1
J
>
3
J
1
09
1
-<
1
1
6
1
1
1
1
-a
J
1
1
>
1
1
1
J
1
1
1
1
1
9
> >
1
"5
J
1
>
>
"5
>
1
>
C3
1
c5
>
>
1
9
>
1
9
>
9
>
1
>
1
>
'5
>
6
>
>
I
>
>
£
'5
> >
>
H
C« ■* 00 <M
■^
S
eo
CO
^
1
T-. (M ■*
ho
X
J,
<M
1-1 M <M (M
CO
1
1
■§
1
1
.!3
1
a:
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
s
i
1
1
1
1
:
1
i88
INTERMARRIAGE IN NEW YORK CITY
[340
S
1
3rd Gen.
(NBNP)
with
3rd Gen.
(NBNP)
3rd Gen.
(NBNP)
with
2nd Gen.
(NBFP)
2nd Gen.
(NBFP)
with
3rd Gen.
(NBNP)
2nd Gen.
(NBFP)
with
2nd Gen.
(NBFP)
3rd Gen.
(NBNP)
with
let Gen.
(FBFP)
1st Gen.
(FBFP)
with
3rd Gen.
(NBNP)
2nd Gen.
(NBFP)
with
1st Gen.
(FBFP)
Ist Gen.
(FBFP)
with
2nd Gen.
(NBFP)
Ist Gen.
(FBFP)
with
1st Gen.
(FBFP)
i
iz;
•<
1
«« U5 ^-
t^
eo r>
(N
(M
e«-
<M M
oc
M
ec
cc
*e.
c
«
e^
CO
01
^
S
?^
10
<^^
i
111
t^
e>» ^
ta
CO
z
CO
|^^
S?
-2JS
s
1
r
i-l (M
■*
M
5:5
CO
gu:,^,rHrtT-<eCT^,-l>O<M(MCO'-lO300-^rti-lr-l
.g....g.
s
M
1
c
tx
<
1
<
1
.1
1
PC
1
1
1
5
J
1
C
1
1
1
1
>
1
>
1
1
■J
1
1
1
i
1
1
<
1
c
'■5
J
e
D =
t^
'1
1
>
1
1
1
1
1
>
'
e
tz
'1
'I
tx
1
1
1
tr
1
c
1
:l
1
1
1
- -_
•1
EC
1
f!
tr
1
tr
1
tr
1
c
tr
1
•. >
c
tr
1
1
tr
1
tr
1
tr
1
t£
1
tr
tr
1
)?
s
tr
1
1
C
tr
1
' 1
tr
1
1
1
tr
i
tr
1
tr
1
§
IE
'
■i
1
341
STATISTICAL APPENDIX
189
CM ~— - CO ^-^
Co. C n,
CO -— (M ^'
C3 fe •£ r5 fe
Ig
CM
"M
5 ST g n7
" p 'S ^ «
s
3
= .-
in 10 CO o
.2^ .
10 UI rt Oi
00 O 05 Tti
^'?
^?
tfw
a ts '5 3 S 3 3
rvi -^ p <; O a pj
H & Ph cQ
flj^^ajojofia) <u O) <u <u o
t-s'-s;-s>-s>-5i-s>-»»-5'-s'-^p-si-5
P5rtP^P^rtrtP:i«p:;p4p^«
OiM^i-iC<I»-ItH»OOOC
f 5^
ell CO
B
tH Tjl lO (M
00 CC O T-t
s
|l|J>l|ilils^^^X.|-g
pj^^paooQHfa004Hai:i^>SpJM
>.>.>.'
&:^&:S:&^&:&:&^&e:^fc
l-5l-5l-,P-Sj-5l-5>-S»r»|
-T> l-» l-S »-3 "-9 l-S >-»
I I I I I I I I 11 I I I I III
p5P4p:?rtP^P^rt«p:!p:3rtP:;p:5p:SP5P5P5
ipo
INTERMARRIAGE IN NEW YORK CITY
[342
£3 Z is rK fe
a ^ I ^ is
S5 n, _ gcu,
C3 fe ^ r5 fa
CM ^-' C^ ^
5^:goS
r«-5
gg
g&^
ePLi
"■sis
15
lllll
£3 (i( qs r5 fa
■5 fa ^ -5 fa
C^ CO '"
1
t^
S
C<5 00 ^
.-1 t^ ,-
<M Cv
■<*
i
c<»
§
5
f^
|gS
M >-<
g
•1
•»f<
2
§
1
S
2^Sg§-
e<3
i
3
^
r^^ggoo
CO 1-1
§
l^g
saga
•^ ,-1
1
1
1
•3
U3
1
1
<
1
1
1
1
1
1
>
1
.2
£
1
1
5
1
i
c
!I3
1
t3
1
1
1
1
1
J
c
:
■
:
:
1
1
I
1
1
13
1
1
"5
'i
;=
.2
I
1
1
1
ca
1
_2
I
1
1
1
1
ec
K
g
p
^
g —
,-1 « ^
^
El
'5
.2
is
1
c
"5
J
.2
1
J
>
1
1
>
1
1
1
1
"5
>
1
1
>
•3
>
1
9"
1
1
343]
STATISTICAL APPENDIX
191
SPh Six,
CM
-gg
gf»H
gpH
M t*< ^
jg-^-
< Tf* (M »o ^
•S§S=|K2|3-
g
s
Tf
•
1
Tt* (M ■<**
§2"'s§J^§;::
s
SS^S^i:5S«'^
g
CO
i
i
i
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
>
J
1
a
1
1
c
•1
1
> >
i
eg
1
1
United States (Jew)..
United States (Jew)..
United States (Jew)..
United States (Jew)..
United States (Jew)..
United States (Jew)..
United States (Jew)..
United States (Jew)..
United States (Jew)..
United States (Jew)..
United States (Jew)..
United States (Jew)..
United States (Jew)..
TTniti»d Rtatfis
1
1
1
192
INTERMARRIAGE IN NEW YORK CITY
[344
Ig-S
£PL|
-CM
eg Cm
CM ^-' e^ ^-^
a 1^ *^
lis
rg Pm ^
2&-
5
5
g
00 00
g
s
t>-
5
S
^
^
i
£;
^
CO
■^
^
'
^
OS
00
S
Ui
i
•«*<
2
§
S
^
i
i
^
§SS :
<^|2*-S5*S|2'*S-^«|SS'"^^-'«5*S52
II
i
P
i
z
"^^^^^^
ii
3
§
<
UJ
>
*5
i
z
^
J
1
1
re
2
1
3
1
1
1
J
M.
2
1
1
1
i
I
1
1
1
•J
a
1
•I
5 C
1
s.
11
2
11
i
5|
i
a
1
c
1
1
1
1
1
u
11
c
1
1
1
'B
11
il
11
VB
c
<
u
H
1-
ii
; <
J
■ \
ll
1 T
'J
I
i
1
i c
i
J
J
I
^3
1
■1
3c
• 2
if
3 3
5C
i2
1 1
If
3C^
i
I
3&:
3
3ti
ii
i^
Ni
ii
^1
1
it
1
1 -
J
^
1
1 :
il
1
^1
II
345]
STATISTICAL APPENDIX
193
2
«3 § -^ ^ ^
a ^ .^ o g
C CU CD-I
_ m -c _, pq
£3 J2; t= rh [x<
a f=< 5
§0,
SpH
2§. J
c a;
<N
c^lj
<
1
I
1^
C^
CM
^0
<
'
;
CM
"
J
<
i
1-
-
—
<
1
<
z
1
QC
d
\
i-
u>
ev4
_2
:
1
1
c
1
IX
>
^
<
1
1
3
1
<
1
1
«
.
H
H
00
00
^
C4
Z '^
f
»o
M
a.
C
IS
c
s
s
H
194
INTERMARRIAGE IN NEW YORK CITY
[346
5z;
Jz;
s
1
3rd Gen.
(NBNP)
with
3rd Gen.
( NBNP)
3rd Gen.
(NBNP)
with
2nd Gen.
(NBFP)
2nd Gen.
(NBFP)
with
3rd Gen.
(NBNP)
:
•
2nd Gen.
(NBFP)
with
2nd Gen.
(NBFP)
■
3rd Gen.
(NBNP)
with
Ist Gen.
(FBFP)
:
•
1st Gen.
(FBFP)
with
3rd Gen.
(NBNP)
2nd Gen.
(NBFP)
with
Ist Gen.
(FBFP)
1^
1st Gen.
(FBFP)
with
2nd Gen.
(NBFP)
I
1st Gen.
(FBFP)
with
1st Gen.
(FBFP)
1
<
•.2
Corea
a
i
t
•i
x
1
1
\
1
eo
coll
:
•
CO
w
c
i
I
CM
•
67-GUATEMALA
Guatemala IGuatemala 1 ll 1 1 1 1 1 1
1
1—
!:
Q •
<
1
1
CM
^Et
Ji
347]
STATISTICAL APPENDIX
195
OQ
-«!
s
c-i
,
k^
2.^g
^p.
^Tg
II
N -—
^1
-.11
sc
^ i^
oft
-<
Pi
S'e^
with
1st Gen.
(FBFP)
!z;
it
11
with
rd Gen.
NBNP)
r-
.
<dPm
e<i^
with
nd Gen.
NBFP)
c.^1
with
St Gen.
FBFP)
,-H --^
ti
<i
s
kH
^
^
^
f:
^
^
1
«
CM
:
<M
CM
;
J :
:
E i
:
^ i
i
1
•a
p
\
i
\
00
00
;
1
00
00
i
.2
N;
g M M
: : : :
LUXEMBl
1
^ ;;M
Luxemburg
Belgium
France
Holland
Italy
Luxemburg
Luxemburg
Luxemburg
Luxemburg
Luxemburg
Luxemburg
Luxembiu-g
Totals
Q.
52, ^
B a-3
III
8 8 8
B S o
"
g i
- \
1
S
^
196
INTERMARRIAGE IN NEW YORK CITY
[348
IS
c5 ^
15
■?:i
I
goT - g^
:
:
Q
3
^
1
;
J
p.
:
1
<N
c<»
■0
:
:
J
8
E
2
(N
<N
.1
1
1
1
1
i
i
;
i
c
c
1
E
c
1
i
e^
r-
e»i
^
1
■"
<N
"«■
1
1
1
1
■5
i
1
1
(5
1
1
) «
J
i
1
'
:
1
r
c
1
349]
STATISTICAL APPENDIX
197
I
g&H „ gP-l
03 'S CO
«
r-i (N
■
:
•
2
CO
;
3
3
CM
?
,-1 rt Cs
■»
i
yi
i
>
M
11;
It
>>>
(M
^
:
(M
ex
1 :
3 •
<
i ;
I;
:
:
1
p5
:
9
i
1
1
i
.^ e» »H ^ 10
: : : : :
s M ;
< : : : :
i\\y
^ . ^ ■ ev*
Austria (Jew)
Germany (Jew)
Hungary (Jew)
United States (Jew)
Canada (Jew)
Canada (Jew)
Canada (Jew)
Canada (Jew)
Totals
CO >-l »-l
-1 CO
1 M'
<
CO T-H f-i
^ <o
ill
3 3-
pq Ph p:
•^ :
11]
r'? :
it ^
11
198
INTERMARRIAGE IN NEW YORK CITY
[350
00 •— - Csl — -
SpH
PQ
" - --
- CO
'
■^ 1 -
^
-
■ ■ -^
-
-
-
: 1 : :
^ -
^
-
\
\ \ 9 '■
_
! 3 •
^
UJ _
^ '■
: uj :
Q
3
u
z
^
<
z
J :
^
DC
<
UJ
fe •
Q.
i
1
^ ;
CO
• ^ •
^
^
: ^ '•
^
__^
t3
®
.2&
&
. J
1
1
(S
tf rt
<!
:
• '?'?
1
otals.
me (Je
me (Je
1
^
"S
DQ
1
1
1
5.
1
i
T
Palest
Palest
H
1
H
.2
1
1
H
1^
OPi
351]
STATISTICAL APPENDIX
199
CO --^ c^ ■— '
g-s
_ P5 •£ _ W
£3 Z 'is r>5 Cc,
PQ
£3 pc4 ^ r5 [sj
r M -g ^ «
» fe "^ to ^
cs
•H
■*
00
i
^ M
«»
^
i
<N
'5
1
1
1
•i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
;
s
i
s
^
i
-"I
=1
1
1 ^
;i
3 ;
U :
To
l\
Tt e»
1
I
1
'a
1
1
>
-
c
1
1
1
1
1
200 INTERMARRIAGE IN NEW YORK CITY
»bU VII
[352
CLASS
Claae
U
laoTwaae of
100^199.9^
Olaae
II
Lnorease of
Olaes
III
InoraaBO of
100^99.9^
aia«a
17
tocreaso of
50034-699.9^
Olaae
7
lucraaee of
700%.999.9^
Cl»a
VI
Increase of
10OO5t-1499.93t
Claaa
711
laoreaao of
1600^-2499.958
Olaae
Tin
laoreasa of
!600ii-8000!t
ciA.-.
n
DecreaM of
100^-199.9> tMO^.»(
■
V
B
V
M
V
H
V
K
V
B
W
B
V
> .
".
«
B 1
OblM
X
Mmn; (lOFth)
X
BollBOd
X
Bnglaad [imi)
Portage
Oerauy (Sonth)
1
Hollud (Jew)
CauiU (Bogl.)
X
otm* (VPM.I
X
Mmaay
X
r
gngl.fl^
X
X
SwltcerlMd (Osm.)
Valet
X
Aoetrle (Bob.l
X
aootUwt
X
yorto Bleo (at>Mi.}
Aaetrl* (dim.)
X
Oeiaany (Jew)
X
_-. ,
Oeapwk
*
X
AustrU (Pol.)
X
1
1
— — —
Qemaqr tHot lo -
oated,
X
;
Vnmoe
X
X
Borwar
X
X
apela
X
X
-^
Boaal* (lol.)
X
z
— f*~"
Biuie>r7 (Jew)
X
X
ifej
I re land
X
Z
' X
^
f
Bnagery (Oun. )
X
X
-T'
TttrK»7
X
Hungaiy (31a*«k)
X
4 menu
-r
Itx); (S.)
X
li:
Italy (Comblnad
arouM)
X
Jews (Oonblnad
groupe)
z
Italy (B.)
X
ItsOy (Bot looated)
Z
X
Austria (Jew)
X
Z
:j»
z
X
i
Bieeia (Jew)
*
1 ■-
Hua«»iy (Hung.)
X
x- ■
D.V.I.
1
z
-^^-"
353]
STATISTICAL APPENDIX
201
TABLE Xlil
PROPORTION OF INTERMARRIAGE AMONG MEN OF VARIOUS NATIONALITIES
IN NEW YORK CITY
ACCORDING TO OCCUPATION AND GENERATION
(1908-1912)
MEN
Culture
Level
Occupation Group
1st Gener.
(FB FP)
%
Grand
Total
2nd Gener.
(NB FP)
%
Grand
Total
ffigh
378
11.1
285
11.3
679
19.9
674
26.6
Medi-
ocre
Manufacturing and mechanical pursuits.
1175
34.4
886
34.9
Personal and domestic service
597
17.6
103
4 1
151
4.5
123
4.9
74
2.3
20
.8
Low
Transportation
31
.9
28
1.1
Navigation
50
1.5
14
.6
Very Low
llTiskilled
265
7.8
399
15 7
Grand Total
3400
100.0
2532
100.0
202
INTERMARRIAGE IN NEW YORK CITY
' ypopomiOH OF sexes iw tk£ isr and 2md ceibkatioks
ixoiro VAiaoua yATioK.u.iiiK3 is m? tohk cm.
(Sarotighs of Uaiihatten and BrooBi
(Oooplled froa Plguroa in 3tatl«tl«»al Sourcaa for Demographic Studiee a»at«r I.
Vol. I. T- II- III Biltad by Ifelter LaUXw, Bi.D.)
T..
[354
1
m
o
o
O
Hi
<« —
« »•
M ■«
B A
H H
O w
A
M
!'i
1
%
1
2
1
r4
s
S
«
g
i
%
3
1
f
8
e
a
I
1
S
$
1
1
{
§
M
Si
s:
S
8
«
«
s
a
^
Si
S
R
S
«
s
s:
S
It
«
s
Si
S:
!
1
(C
1
1
i
n
1
1
i
1
^
1
1
i
i
1^
i
S5
$
1
i
8
S
1
o
E
»
• %
i
i
g
1
1
i
2
g
s
e
g
1
I
1
1
1
i
fi
2
1
1
«)
i
'
n
I
•»
%
1
s
&
1
^
o
3
^
a
1
g
§
3
1
^
s
•a
8
9>
2
1
o»
a
!
3
>i
%
s
g
2
^
o
g
1
^
1
^
^
§
to
13
s
i
M
i
1
1
o
??
'•
S
1
•»
P
1
i
1
i
i
8
1
i
g
fH
1
^
i
s
s
3>
to
1
to
2
i
^
S
.
1
»
1
i
i
S
i
1
i
§
1
a
i
■0
5
^
«0
;3
i
a>
1
i
1
s~
K
T
T
M
O
■4
n
S
s>
s
S
3
2
p
g
5
s
S
$
S
:5
1
2
s;
s
s
s
g
CM
e
H
i:
1
s
1
e
s
s
B
S
a
i
1
s
§
s
^
^
s
1
s
a
i
2
3
2
%
tC
i
1
i
i
1
i
i
1
i
^
1
1
1
i
s
i
1
1
1
1
3
5
^
1
g
«
i
i
1
1
1
1
CO
1
1
§
?
i
1
1
i ^
1
1
1
i
1
1
T"
i
1
nf
s
i
t
^
i
1
s
5
S
i
M
S
1
s
i^
-
1
1
1
g
5
a
1
M
t
1
in
%
i
g
s
1
1
^
1
1
1
1
lis
1
5
1
s
fi
1
2
a
s
2
1
4
o;
i
S
1
1
a
i
3
i
1
1
1
i
§
i
1
1
5
IS
a
1
S
1
3
1
1
a
i
1
§
1
i
3
1
2
3
Si
1
8
S
:8
2
1
1
i
i
i
a
s
i
2
a
i
«-
■4
H
O
-
*
1
.
1
•
1
_2i
J
J
jj
1
1
5
1
1
i
8
1
&
1
,
<4
i
1
o
i
4
i
-A-
LL
f
>>
4
1
1
■1
V
a
1
s
355]
\ STATISTICAL APPENDIX
203
TABLE XVI
PROPORTION OF MARRIAGEABLE PERSONS IN NEW YORK CITY
ACCORDING TO GENERATION
1910
(Adapted from U. S. Census, 1910, Vol. 3 Pop. Stat. p. 222, Table 16.)
Generation
Single
Men
%
Grand
Total
Single
Women
%
Grand
Total
Number of
Men
per 100
Women
Number of
Women
per 100
Men
Ist Generation (Foreign born
^hite)
298,096
42.9
231,066
38.2
129
77
2nd Generation (Native white of
foreign or mixed parentage) . . .
257,869
37.1
243,857
40.4
105
94
3rd Generation (Native white of
139,117
20.0
129,668
21.4
107
93
Grand Total
695,082
100.0
604,591
100.0
204
INTERMARRIAGE IN NEW YORK CITY
[356
z 2
< i=
Ess
z
^
^
H
PL,
>
CO
X z
Z
7=;
y^
t>
(0 S
J2l
s
<
>•
1'
III
H
^
iS
1^
p
«c
>
a
g
^
^
111
a
?
2
s
Z
z
^
DC
g
Q
DC
QL
d i
1^
g
^
s
No. of
Men
per 100
Women
ci
«5
1
i
CO
t^
O
1
1
1
05
1
s
s
CO
1
1
2
00
s
1
1
1
1
3
»o
1
I5
^
1
1
i«
s
1
1
<m"
a
1
1
2"
i
1
-
j
1
1
J
•1
1
•43
g
1
1
!l
3
3
•a
J
VITA
Julius Drachsler, born September 5, 1889, in Northwestern
Hungary, now part of the Republic of Qiecko-Slovakia ;
attended royal gymnasium at Rosenberg, 1900-1903. Came
to the United States in 1903; graduated from Townsend
Harris Hall High School, 1908, and from the College of the
City of New York, 1912, with degree of Bachelor of Science ;
received certificate from New York School of Social Work in
1914; M. A. in sociology from Columbia University, in 1915.
Entered the field of social service in 1913; assistant
secretary of the Jewish Big Brother Association, 1913-1915;
secretary of the Faculty of The School for Jewish Com-
munal Work, 1915-1918; assistant executive director of the
Bureau of Jewish Social Research, 1918-1919; during the
latter part of the war served as special expert and assist-
ant executive director of the New York office of the Bureau
of War Risk Insurance.
Lecturer on immigration and problems of race fusion,
in New York Training School for Community Workers,
1918; lecturer in Sociology, College of the City of New
York, 1920; assistant professor of economics and sociology
in Smith College, Northampton, Mass., September, 1919
\
t9'
<^o^
^%^
PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE
CARDS OR SLIPS FROM THIS POCKET
UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO LIBRARY
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11